PRIVATE BUSINESS

Hereford Markets Bill [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Tuesday 9 September.

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Airport Expansion

Cheryl Gillan: What recent representations he has received about airport expansion.

Alistair Darling: The national consultation ended on 30 June. We estimate that at least 300,000 responses have been received from across the UK. We are analysing all these and, as I have said, we will set out our decisions in the air transport White Paper later this year.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Government granted permission for terminal 5, they said that they would strictly limit the growth of aircraft movements, which so badly affect my constituents in Chesham and Amersham? Do the announcement of the widening of the M25 and yesterday's announcement of permission for Crossrail to go ahead with consultation on the Heathrow route imply tacit approval for a third runway at Heathrow—and does that not make a mockery of the assurances that the Government gave my constituents?

Alistair Darling: No, I do not think that it does. The Crossrail proposal, to which we shall return if we reach Question 6, has merit in its own right. It will provide links between east and west London, including Heathrow. If it gets the final go-ahead, it will bring the advantage of removing traffic from the roads because more people will be able to go to Heathrow by rail. I should have thought that that would be thoroughly good for everyone who lives in west London. The hon. Lady will be aware that when my predecessor gave terminal 5 the go-ahead, he made it clear that he was aware that the Government were about to consult on the future capacity requirements of airports, including Heathrow, so I do not accept the premise of her question at all.

Mark Lazarowicz: When my right hon. Friend has a look at the 300,000 responses, will he bear in mind the fact that air transport in the UK alone benefits from some £7.5 billion of tax concessions each year? Will he consider the fact that if the concessions were phased out, that would reduce some of the pressure for airport expansion and provide additional financial resources for transport, of which I am sure he would make good use?

Alistair Darling: As for the 300,000 responses, the House might be interested to know that half of them came from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Andrew MacKinlay: It has a bigger membership than the Labour and Tory parties put together.

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend says, the RSPB enjoys a very high membership that must be the envy of all political parties—although I doubt whether we are likely to emulate that membership just yet.
	The Government have always made it clear that the aviation industry should be responsible for meeting its costs. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) will also be aware that the reason why air fares have reduced so dramatically is not so much because of taxation but because the no-frills carriers—the low-cost airlines—have stripped out much of the costs of selling their tickets. My hon. Friend might also be interested to know that unsurprisingly, people in London have the greatest propensity to fly, but those in Scotland are the second most likely to fly.

Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), replied at column 24W of yesterday's Hansard that the total cost of the consultation was £4.2 million? Will he explain why he has set a 30-year frame for airport consultation but only a 10-year transport plan for road and rail? Does he accept that he got his sums wrong on at least one aspect: the road and rail links to Stansted airport?

Alistair Darling: Let me try to answer the hon. Lady and find out whether I understand her correctly. Naturally, the consultation documents on air travel that we have published examine the situation over a 20 to 30-year time horizon because of the time that would be taken to plan and build extra capacity. It is sensible to consider such things over a long period. The 10-year plan is essentially related to the Government's spending programme, and the hon. Lady will recall that annual programmes existed in the days of the Conservative Government. All spending Departments now have their spending fixed three years ahead so that they have greater certainty, which allows for better planning. However, we have fixed transport spending on a 10-year time horizon. Fixing the spending of any Department on a 30-year time horizon would be problematic, because the figures would become less reliable as one went further on in time. I say in the nicest possible way to the hon. Lady that she is not comparing like with like.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strong case for expanding London Luton airport. He will also be aware that with very modest investment, passenger throughput could be quadrupled from 7 million to 28 million, and with a little more investment, it could be expanded to more than 60 million passengers a year. Will he consider giving Luton an early go-ahead before the more difficult options elsewhere are considered?

Alistair Darling: I am well aware of the arguments that my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), have advanced on Luton airport. However, I have made it clear many times that I intend to make the decisions and the announcement on air travel at the same time, at the end of the year. No announcements will be made in advance in respect of a particular proposal or airport.

John Randall: Perhaps I can return to the subject of birds. Given that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has given a licence to BAA to cull Canada geese in the vicinity of Heathrow, within, I think, a 15 km or perhaps a 15 mile radius, what representations has the Department had on bird strike at Heathrow, bearing in mind that a few years ago a flock of Canada geese hit a Boeing jet?

Alistair Darling: I am aware of the fact that some years ago a Boeing 767 hit 20 or 30 Canada geese. The Department, the Civil Aviation Authority and the airport operators keep bird strike under close review. They are aware of the issues and receive a number of representations. Unfortunately, bird strike is a feature of most airports, for obvious reasons. The key is to manage the problem as best we can by controlling the number of birds around an airport. Most people would agree, however, that the matter is under control at British airports.

Rail Franchises

Andrew MacKinlay: If he will make a statement on the extent to which (a) performance and (b) customers' complaints will be a material consideration when future rail franchises are awarded.

Alistair Darling: The Strategic Rail Authority must ensure that bids for franchises are evaluated on an objective and fair basis, and that the market is open to new entrants. The criteria therefore focus on compliance with the SRA's specification, bidders' ability to deliver and value for money. Improving performance is, of course, a fundamental objective for all franchises.

Andrew MacKinlay: I thank the Minister for that response. However, passengers are frustrated by the lack of a mechanism for their complaints to be heard, evaluated and determined in a consistent way. One of their complaints is often that they do not know how to complain. Complaints relate not merely to reliability, but to the inability to purchase a ticket, cleanliness, access to loos and so on. All franchises have the implied term or condition that there will be good services and a response to complaints, but people are frustrated. There is no passenger power, and there should be. I invite my right hon. Friend to address that matter, so that the SRA has to take into consideration the failure of train operators to respond reasonably to complaints and representations by the paying passengers. It is time he protected the passenger.

Alistair Darling: At the moment there does not appear to be any difficulty with people making complaints, since there are rather more of them than one would like.

Andrew MacKinlay: But they are not recorded.

Alistair Darling: Complaints are received and recorded, not only from individuals but from the rail passenger councils that have been set up across the country. It is more productive, however, to address the fundamental problems that give rise to complaints. The first thing is to improve reliability, and the second is to do what the SRA is doing—to change the franchising policy so that, in future, issues such as reliability and cleanliness are essential parts of holding a franchise. If train companies do not meet their obligations they can be taken off the track altogether, which did not happen in the system that we inherited.

Michael Fallon: Given that my constituents' trains are more crowded and less punctual than they were when the right hon. Gentleman started in government six years ago, and as he keeps going on about the year of delivery, can he give me an idea when the year of delivery might be?

Alistair Darling: Train services in the south-east and other parts of the country are slowly seeing reliability increase. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of one of the difficulties that we face. The Government of whom he was a member failed to make provision to upgrade and replace the power supply for trains running south of the River Thames. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that trains ought to be better and more reliable, but we are making up for 18 years in which the Tory Government did not put enough money into trains.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern that the improvement is not as fast as it should be, but we are upgrading the power supply to get greater reliability of trains and replacing 40 per cent. of the rolling stock, nearly half of it on the London commuter services, which should improve reliability and quality of journey. The Conservatives neglected that, and did nothing about it in their rush to privatise the railways, with all the consequences that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and ours have to put up with.

Graham Stringer: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the fact that as Network Rail lets shorter and shorter franchises, it is taking more revenue risk than originally envisaged when the railways were privatised, the banks are learning that lesson, which is likely to make it more difficult to finance major infrastructure, both heavy rail and light schemes? What will he do about that?

Alistair Darling: Of course, it is the SRA that lets the franchises. It is right to move to a system that has far greater specification of the requirements of reliability, cleanliness, safety, and so on. One disadvantage of the longer-term, 15-year franchises was that towards the end of them the figures were unrealistic and more and more train companies said that they could not deliver. That does not make any sense. My hon. Friend has a point, in that the costs of some railway projects and light rail schemes—there is an example in Manchester—appear to be going up, up and away in an unjustified way. That is partly to do with the attitude of those in the private sector who are financing the projects. I am extremely concerned about that because we cannot allow industry to come to believe that if it names a price, we will simply pay it. That is not the case. Despite what has been said in the House, certainly from the Opposition Benches, private investment in the railways continues to be substantial, and it is one reason why we are able to invest so much in total, which will improve the railways.

George Young: Further to the reply that the Secretary of State has just given, he will know that the SRA has just renewed the South West Trains franchise, but only for three years. In conjunction with the SRA, will he consider longer franchises, because the longer the franchise the greater the incentive for the train operator to invest in rolling stock, stations, car parks and other improvements?

Alistair Darling: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was around at the time when the railways were privatised. The idea then was that if a franchise were awarded for 15 or 20 years, train companies would come up with investment and eventually start paying money back into public funds, but that did not happen. Far too many train companies took the profits in the first two or three years and then came back to us and said, "Sorry, we can't deliver on our side of the bargain." We are moving to a far better system, whereby franchises will be let for seven years and will be renewable, but what companies are meant to produce in the way of reliability, comfort, safety and so on will be strictly specified.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, the South West Trains franchise was continued for the next three years to allow for the introduction of new rolling stock to replace the mark 1 slam-door trains. After that, the franchise will be put out to tender in the proper way under the new system. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all Opposition Members who still believe that privatisation will somehow make an improvement, that, as with so many things that the Conservative party did, the promises were never delivered.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is that not precisely why the Secretary of State should encourage the Strategic Rail Authority to chop off a few heads in the train operating companies? Frankly, passengers are getting sick to the back teeth of companies that could not run a jumble sale. Unless we make it very clear that the taxpayer will not go on funding incompetence as a career in very poor companies, everyone will suffer.

Alistair Darling: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, the SRA made it clear last month in the case of Connex that it was not willing to carry on putting money into a company when it was not satisfied that there were adequate financial controls. That is a clear lesson to railway operators that high standards are rightly demanded, that the public expect them, and that the train companies must deliver. As I said earlier, the SRA will have the power under the new franchising system to get somebody off the tracks much more quickly and effectively if they do not deliver. That will make for a far better service.

Utilities (Public Highways)

Ian Lucas: If he will introduce legislation to provide for an improved system for utility companies to give notice to local authorities of works on the public highway.

Tony McNulty: Since April 2001, highway authorities in England can charge utilities up to £2,000 a day every time any of their works overrun an agreed deadline. The National Assembly for Wales has that power but, I believe, has not utilised it yet. We are also operating pilot schemes in Camden and Middlesbrough to test powers to charge utilities from the start of each work. Once parliamentary time permits, we intend to introduce a Bill containing measures to allow more effective management of utilities' works, to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum and end the nonsense of roads being dug up time and time again, with all the commensurate congestion.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and am glad that legislation is on the horizon. In particular, will he ensure that the legislation includes strict compensation provisions so that businesses that are strongly and adversely affected when due notice is not given by utilities are given appropriate compensation? That will enable constituents such as Mr. and Mrs. Ruscoe of Tan-y-Dre in my constituency to receive proper recompense for the great damage that has been done to their business over far too long a period.

Tony McNulty: On balance, we decided to do things the other way round, and make sure that important measures are in place to deal with notice and tighten the existing legislative framework for utility works to reduce the disruptive effect on businesses such as the one cited by my hon. Friend, thus obviating the need for compensation. We do not believe that including rigid requirements on the payment of compensation in legislation is the best way forward. If we get the overall regime in place and working, that will obviate the need for compensation.

David Taylor: Can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any early feedback from the pilot schemes in Camden and Middlesbrough, and whether such an approach will improve the position, particularly in town centres, where work by utilities is inadequately communicated to commercial frontages, and the extent of closures in their part of the town is often not well understood? Will that position improve if the pilot scheme is extended?

Tony McNulty: The impact of constant roadworks is well known and deleterious for businesses that just want to go about their business. The Camden and Middlesbrough schemes have not been up and running for terribly long, and we are still awaiting feedback from them. When there is a full review of the pilots we will feed the results into legislation, and, I hope, resolve the problem throughout the country, including Leicestershire.

John Bercow: According to what published criteria, and under whose auspices, is it determined that in certain cases such works shall take place at night?

Tony McNulty: Invariably, that is done in co-operation with the relevant highways authority.

Hydrogen Fuel

Tam Dalyell: What progress has been made in the past three months with his work on hydrogen fuel-based transport.

David Jamieson: The energy White Paper set out the steps that the Government are taking to explore the possible use of hydrogen in transport, industry and elsewhere. As part of this, we have begun a detailed assessment of the implications of transport hydrogen for our wider energy and transport policies.

Tam Dalyell: What is the case for co-operating with the billion-dollar American project on hydrogen in Idaho?

David Jamieson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's enormous interest in these issues. We are aware of the research in the United States, and we are in dialogue with the Americans to make possible partnerships on hydrogen work. I think my hon. Friend would agree that international work on a matter of global significance is important. The United States is looking in particular at producing electricity from nuclear sources to produce hydrogen, but we may decide on a different approach. Nevertheless, the Government are addressing seriously the future prospects for hydrogen.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that Department of Health statistics show that nearly 400 Londoners a year die from transport-related pollution. As hydrogen is much cleaner than petrol—it produces no CO2 emissions—will he give increased impetus to research on hydrogen, as London seems to be well behind many other capital cities in Europe in advancing its use?

David Jamieson: The level of air pollution in many of our cities, particularly London, has improved vastly over the past 10 or 20 years, although that does not mean that the situation is ideal. We see hydrogen as the medium to long-term solution to the problem of pollution in our cities, but we must solve the problem of how the hydrogen is produced. It must be produced from electricity that is sustainable and does not produce CO2 and other emissions. In the meantime we have a complex programme to introduce cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels, and to improve engine technology, including the catalysts. We are working closely with our colleagues in the European Union to address some of those issues. I am glad to say that improvements are being made, but the Government share the hon. Gentleman's impatience for us to move rapidly on these important matters.

Kevin Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the integrated gasification plant being built in my constituency by Coalpower is capable not only of producing electricity without any toxic emission, but of capturing enough hydrogen to power the local bus fleet? Does he agree that the development of hydrogen power is so crucial to the future of the environment that the Government should play a major role in developing that technology?

David Jamieson: I am aware of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. It demonstrates why we are looking across a wide range of projects to get cleaner fuels. We do not think that there is one solution. There may be many and varied solutions and various technologies may be used, but in the meantime we will examine the fuel duty on hydrogen, and may give that encouragement. My hon. Friend is rubbing his fingers together as though money might be available, but that would be from a different Department, not mine. There are many other measures that we are introducing on vehicle excise duty, company car tax and, as I mentioned a moment ago, cleaner engines. I will consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises to see whether there is any way that we can further progress it. I am grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of the House.

M6 (Traffic Congestion)

Tony Wright: What assessment he has made of the extent to which the rail system can relieve traffic congestion on the M6 in the west midlands.

Kim Howells: Work by the Strategic Rail Authority shows that the £9 billion west coast main line upgrade will lead to transfers of both passengers and freight from road to rail and help to relieve congestion along the whole route from London to Glasgow, including the M6 in the west midlands.

Tony Wright: My hon. Friend knows that for large parts of the day, the M6 in the west midlands does not move at all. That is partly because of the local traffic that uses the motorway. If we are to get that traffic off the motorway and on to rail, we need a good local rail service, yet the Chase line which serves my constituency cannot afford to invest in more trains or longer platforms, so we have an overcrowded, unreliable service that drives people on to the roads and clogs up the M6. Does that not cry out for a bit of joined-up thinking?

Kim Howells: I acknowledge the problems that my hon. Friend has just listed, but there is a great deal of joined-up thinking on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced a billion-pound programme for the west midlands. We are looking for ideas from local authorities, and we are looking at their local transport plans. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that Birmingham Moor Street station is being extensively refurbished, the Kidderminster and Stourbridge service via Snow Hill has increased, and the cross-city line is providing a turn-up-and-go passenger service on the west midlands city line. There is a great deal of work going on and I am confident that it will address some of the problems. I hope that my hon. Friend is under no illusion that the vast amount of traffic currently on the M6 will all be relieved by improvements to the rail service. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last December, and more recently, a programme of road widening on some parts of the motorway system, including the M6. We are also considering traffic management measures for the M42, some of which are quite revolutionary in concept.

Don Foster: The Minister is right to say that the upgrade of the west coast main line will assist, but does he agree that if we are going to get more people out of their cars on the M6 and on to the railways, we must improve reliability? Is it not appalling that in the past 12 months, delays on our railways have been caused not only by the wrong type of snow and the wrong type of leaves, but by the right types of leaves in the wrong season, and that the latest cause of delay is the current fine weather, as it is too hot? Is he not embarrassed to preside over a railway system that is more sensitive to the weather than English cricket is?

Kim Howells: I have not been embarrassed since I saw England thrashed by Wales three times in a row.
	On my way to London on First Great Western yesterday, I was informed that we should be watching out, as the current extreme temperature means that the rails might expand and signalling could start tripping off, which would cause big problems. The work that we are doing, and the money that we are putting into railways, are intended precisely to address such situations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that some of the delays are somehow avoidable. He knows full well that they are not avoidable, and that it is sometimes necessary to blockade lines in order to carry out the essential maintenance and refurbishment that are needed if we are to improve the railways in the long run. I am sure that he agrees that a lot of work is involved because there have been decades of under-investment in our railways, in which such maintenance was not carried out.

Mike Hall: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the question was about the M6. I say to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that when he seeks to come in on a question, his remarks should relate to that question. He asked about railways, but he should not have done so, and this will be the last time he gets away with it.

Mike Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware that since privatisation, Virgin Trains no longer has its west coast main line stop at Hartford station in my constituency. Cross Country has reduced the number of stops at Hartford, and we are also about lose the stop on the Liverpool to Birmingham run. One way of reducing congestion on the M6 would be to encourage train operators to make better use of Hartford station.

Kim Howells: I take my hon. Friend's point. We certainly have to look very hard at those local services and at the way in which we utilise lines in that area, but we also need to realise that if we are to make best use of the tracks, we must look carefully at the timetable and ensure that the slow trains are not slowing down trains that should be fast. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that difficulty, but I shall take a look at the specific issue that he raises and try to get back to him.

Crossrail

Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on Crossrail.

Alistair Darling: As I announced yesterday, I have now received from Cross London Rail Link its updated business case for Crossrail. The Government will need to evaluate the proposals thoroughly to ensure that they are feasible. At the same time, I have asked CLRL to press ahead with its development of detailed project proposals, including advising on updating the safeguarding of the route and undertaking a public consultation exercise on the route in the autumn.

Mike Gapes: I have been pressing Ministers for Crossrail for 11 years, so I am pleased that the Government yesterday gave their support in principle. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that, but can he assure me, and millions of Londoners and visitors to this city, that there will be no further unnecessary delays in the project, that early legislation will be introduced in the hybrid Bill and that trains will be running from Shenfield through Ilford and Stratford, and from Paddington to Heathrow, on Crossrail within a decade?

Alistair Darling: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I believe that the Crossrail project is very important for the future of London. It is equally important, however, to ensure that we get it right. The last attempt to build Crossrail in the 1980s and 1990s foundered because not enough attention was given to the detail involved in the project. That is why it is important that the public consultation, which will be carried out this autumn, should deal with the route and all the proposals in some detail to ensure that the business case stacks up.
	On any view, this is an extremely expensive project. It is very important now that all the people in London who said that they were willing in principle to pay for the project should realise that we are now at a stage where we need from them not only support, but cash. As the report recognised, the project must be a joint venture between the Government and the private sector, so it is time for people who say that they support it to reach for their wallets and come up with very firm proposals.

Tim Collins: What does the Secretary of State expect the precise cost of the project to be, and are he and the Treasury absolutely committed to guaranteeing its delivery?

Alistair Darling: That is a bit rich coming from someone who is committed to wholesale cuts in public expenditure. We did not get Crossrail under the last Tory Government and we will not get it under the next Tory Government. As the business case makes clear, the cost will be in excess of £10 billion. Clearly, the precise cost will depend on the route and the construction of the service. As I made clear in my statement yesterday, the Chancellor and I intend to consult London businesses and others to ensure that we secure the best and most effective way of funding the project. Before the hon. Gentleman next gets to his feet, I remind him that for as long as he is committed to 20 per cent. cuts in public spending, anything that he says about funding has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Tim Collins: Yesterday, as a result of an exclusive interview with the Secretary of State, the Evening Standard ran, uncorrected by his Department, the headline: "Crossrail gets £10bn go-ahead". It now turns out that it might not be £10 billion and that it did not really get a go-ahead at all. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, trains will not be remotely punctual before 2010, most of the roads that he announced last week will not be completed before 2012, and Crossrail may still never happen? How much longer do the long-suffering travelling public have to wait before he and his colleagues get their act together?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman, all too typically, is shifting his ground away from the point that I made about Crossrail. The one thing that all transport, whether road or rail, has lacked in the past is high levels of sustained investment. I concede that the problem bedevilled successive Governments of both major parties, but the Conservatives, in the 10 years prior to their losing the 1997 general election, cut the amount of money going into road and rail. That lack of investment is one reason why the public are now suffering. We are putting that right by investing in the railways and roads. The Conservative party remains committed to a 20 per cent. reduction in public expenditure, much of which will come out of spending on roads. If Conservative Members are worried about my saying that, they should just look at the results of what they did in office.

Jane Griffiths: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's support in principle for Crossrail, for which I have pressed for several years on behalf of my constituents in Reading. I welcome the opportunity that it provides for better rail links to Heathrow, thus reducing congestion on the roads. Will he consider using the opportunity of Crossrail to ensure that there is a western rail link to Heathrow with its end at Reading?

Alistair Darling: I am afraid that I must caution my hon. Friend and others that if Crossrail is to get the final go-ahead and be built, it is important to have a manageable project. One of the reasons why it sank under the Conservative Government was that not enough attention was paid to its detail, feasibility and deliverability. I am all in favour of improved links between Reading and Paddington—indeed, last week I referred to a proposal that will allow better links between the Thames valley and Heathrow airport, which will help my hon. Friend's constituents—but, in relation to Crossrail, let us concentrate on having a project that is manageable and deliverable. If that happens, there is every chance that London will actually get it, rather than its being the mere pipedream that it was under the Conservative Government.

Adam Price: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as is the case with expenditure on the London underground, any proposed public spending on the London Crossrail initiative will result in consequential increases for the devolved Administrations, which will allow us to get on with the Glasgow and Aberdeen crossrail proposals and the proposal to rebuild the north-south rail link in Wales? Will he make such representations to himself as Secretary of State for Scotland?

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman had spent more time practising his question, it might have had better effect. We are spending money on the railways throughout the United Kingdom. That would not be possible were Wales ever to become a separate state, in which case it would not have that money. The fact is that money is being spent on the railways throughout the United Kingdom, which will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom.

David Clelland: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, entitled "Reducing Regional Disparities in Prosperity"? Given his announcement last week on road improvements, out of which the north-east did very badly, his recent scepticism about policies such as expanding the Tyneside metro system and his apparent enthusiasm for Crossrail, does he believe that the Department is entering fully into the spirit of the Government's policies on reducing regional disparity?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I do. If my hon. Friend examines identifiable public spending by region, he will realise that although a great deal of money is undoubtedly spent in London for clear reasons, the north-east is the next most obvious beneficiary. A case can be made for spending more on transport and other matters in every area of the country. We are trying to ensure that our approach is fair for the whole country. I understand my hon. Friend's point about last week's announcement in which I was able to give the go-ahead to some projects but not others, but if he examines the figures for identifiable public expenditure, he will find that the Government are spending substantial sums of money in the north-east, as they are entitled to do.

Speed Cameras

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on the impact of speed cameras on traffic safety.

David Jamieson: An independent report on the two-year trial of the cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras was published on 11 February 2003. It found, on average, a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to around 280 people, and a 4 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in the trial areas, equating to approximately 530 people.

Andrew MacKay: Is not the truth that the Government's policy on speed cameras is a complete muddle and mess? It is despised by motorists, who perceive it as simply another stealth tax. Would it not be much better to tear down speed cameras on safe motorways and dual carriageways and instead concentrate on serious blackspots and on traffic lights to prevent people from jumping traffic lights and blocking junctions, thus causing congestion in our urban areas?

David Jamieson: If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would have realised that the cameras in the netting-off scheme can be placed only at sites where there is a considerable amount of injuries. Perhaps he and colleagues should speak to some of the people in urban areas who have speed cameras in their locality that have greatly reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured. Conservative Members must reflect carefully on their policy of removing cameras because they will have to explain to the people in those areas the casualties and deaths resulting from their policies.

Helen Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the huge public support for the Government's swift action in installing speed cameras on the dangerous section of the Stocksbridge bypass across the Pennines? People would be horrified at the idea that an incoming Government would simply remove speed cameras, which have so far prevented any further major accidents on that road.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes my point. The cameras are usually popular with local people in the areas where they are installed. Indeed, there would be ructions in some places if the cameras were removed because people know that they reduce injuries, especially to children and often to elderly people. Those two categories are the most vulnerable on our roads. I assure my hon. Friend that our policy of ensuring that cameras are located at the sites of the most casualties will continue. I ask the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and other Conservative Members to reflect on their policy.

Christopher Chope: Is not the Minister's argument based on a fallacy? He is not considering the overall impact on road casualties and deaths. If speed cameras are so effective, why were more people killed on our roads last year than in 1998?

David Jamieson: It is true that the number of people killed on our roads has remained steady at about 3,400 for several years. As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a recent debate, that is partly because of the increased amount of traffic on our roads and the increase in the number of miles that people are travelling. The number of people being seriously injured has, however, been reduced. The hon. Gentleman should look not just at the camera sites but at the areas in which they have been installed, because there has been a substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured not only at the sites, but across the areas as well.

Integrated Transport (Bridgend)

Win Griffiths: If he will visit Bridgend to discuss his policies for developing integrated transport as they affect Bridgend.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend will be aware that the responsibility for developing integrated transport, along with much of the funding in the relevant transport areas, has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. It will therefore be for the Assembly, working with Bridgend borough council, to develop suitable policies in this area.

Win Griffiths: I appreciate that that is the case, but there is nevertheless an important role for the Department of Transport—with its responsibility for railways—in terms of taking initiatives to enable the proper integration of the bus and railway stations in my constituency. Although they are only about 160 m apart, up a sharp hill, that is a disincentive for the people using them. I look to the Department to blaze a trail by offering incentives to bring bus and railway stations together. In fact, that would very much help the Minister's own constituency of Pontypridd.

Kim Howells: The lunatics who run my local authority, namely the Welsh nationalists, see no sense whatever in bringing together a bus station and a railway station that are 250 m apart. I have been trying to make this point to them for a very long time, and I hope that they will listen to it now. We are certainly interested in promoting the integration that my hon. Friend mentioned, wherever we can. The Welsh Assembly has a large tranche of money, which it sometimes uses very judiciously to try to promote the integration of traffic. I am glad that it is doing so and I hope that that work will continue.

A556

George Osborne: What plans he has to improve the A556 between the M6 and M56.

David Jamieson: The Secretary of State recognises the importance of this route and has asked the Highways Agency to look for innovative ways of making best use of this road and to investigate methods of tackling congestion at the key junctions along the route. In response to this, the Highways Agency has recently appointed Hyder Consulting to produce a route management study for this important trunk road.

George Osborne: The A556 is a dangerous, polluted road that goes through a residential area, and is the main link between Manchester, Birmingham and London. Surely the Minister will accept that it is unsuitable for that purpose. Some people wanted a new motorway link in the area; others, including me, wanted junction 20 of the M6 improved. If nothing is done, the Government will find that this eight-lane M6 superhighway will come to a juddering halt at the two-lane A556. This route needs serious upgrading.

David Jamieson: The Government are not doing nothing, as I illustrated in my first answer. There will be a route management study. There will also be a meeting this Friday in the hon. Gentleman's constituency between the various interested parties who will consider the important issues relating to that road, and we have already announced a £1.2 million scheme at Bucklow Hill. We recognise that this is an important issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the area will be able to attend some of these meetings to consider the positive way in which we can make improvements.

Road Charging

Michael Fabricant: What studies he is making on future road charging policy; and if he will make a statement.

Lawrie Quinn: Just in time!

Alistair Darling: A just-in-time question; it is good of the hon. Gentleman to join us. As I announced on 9 July and set out in the strategy paper published on that day, we shall be carrying out a feasibility study of road user charging.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Secretary of State for that not-so-charming reply. I have just been in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which, under the new hours, meets at the same time as these proceedings in the Chamber, and in which we are currently interviewing representatives of the BBC.
	The Secretary of State knows that we shall have a toll road in 2004 when the M6 toll is introduced. What consideration is he giving to differential tolling to encourage local people to use such toll roads? Initially, promises were made that there would be a thorough investigation by the M6 toll group to see whether discounts could be offered to local users, but it was decided not to offer such discounts. What is the Secretary of State's view on this?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the M6 toll road concession was granted in the early 1990s and that few conditions were attached to it. The concessionaire was allowed to build the road and then charge its tolls. I dare say that, if we were starting again now, we would probably take a rather different approach.
	On road user charging generally, we are currently at the stage of simply assessing what is feasible. Charging differential rates to encourage people to use the roads at less busy times is one policy under consideration. We could also consider area charging—in circumstances where main trunk roads are effectively being used as local roads—in order to deal with some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. A whole variety of measures could be adopted, which is why I am extremely disappointed that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen will not accept the need to examine even the feasibility of various proposals. They simply rule them out, which I believe is selling short future generations, who will expect the Government to demonstrate some leadership and assess what might be possible with the use of new technology.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Civil Contingencies (North Yorkshire)

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of contingency planning for emergencies in North Yorkshire.

Douglas Alexander: North Yorkshire has had recent experience of dealing with contingencies after the extensive flooding of previous years. Direct assessment of emergency planning at the local level is carried out through bodies such as the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary as part of their wider assessment work.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that during the floods of autumn 2000 there was a breakdown of communications, particularly at silver command level, in the city of York? Are he and his Department convinced that every aspect of the new contingencies will be examined, including vital communications in the midst of a flood?

Douglas Alexander: I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that flooding is one of the contingencies anticipated in the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. Communication between local respondents is obviously important, and we believe that the Bill's approach reflects the fact that collaborative work with a wide range of local responders is often—as in the example that she provided—necessary.

Hugh Bayley: Speaking as someone who sat in the silver command meetings during the crisis of the York floods—where I met people from the Army, the fire service, the police, the utilities and other agencies working together, as well as people such as councillors and Members of Parliament who were invited in—I should like to say that the system worked extremely well. Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the emergency services on their response to that crisis, and, indeed, to the Selby rail crash? Does he recognise that it is because more resources are going into those services that they are able to train for emergencies, and that the Conservative policies of cutting public expenditure would ruin—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Alexander.

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend raises several important points. First, the local respondents acted extremely effectively in those emergencies, and I would also like to pay tribute to the BBC, which, through its local radio service in Yorkshire, was able to communicate a range of important pieces of information to the community at a very difficult time.
	My hon. Friend also raises the important question of resources. It would benefit the House if I made it clear that during the last spending review, we allocated extra funds, bringing a real growth average of 8.6 per cent. a year in respect of flood warning and defences. That amounts to a total of £564 million by 2005–06. Of course it is important that local respondents work effectively, but they need resources to do the job, which is why we have committed those extra funds.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister has been very interesting on flooding, but will he turn his attention to other disasters that might engulf North Yorkshire? He will be aware that the head of MI5 recently warned about radiological, biological and chemical attacks. He will also be aware that, in the event of such an attack on Sellafield being successful, more than 44 times the amount of radioactive material that came from Chernobyl would certainly engulf the whole of Yorkshire. Will the Minister tell us what specific contingency plans exist for North Yorkshire in the event of such a disaster?

Douglas Alexander: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench in respect of Cabinet Office questions. I have a couple of points to make. First, Sellafield is not in North Yorkshire. Secondly, of course there is the potential for a real disaster for North Yorkshire—the re-election of a Conservative Government. However, it is important to recognise that a serious threat level remains. If specific intelligence and information come to the Government's attention about a specific threat, that information would be brought, without hesitation or delay, to the attention of the emergency services and the British public. The draft Civil Contingencies Bill covers North Yorkshire and will specifically ensure that duties are laid on local authorities and other local respondents to build on the success already achieved in recent years in respect of developing resilience capability.

Government Information Systems

Meg Munn: What steps have been taken to improve the security of Government information systems.

Douglas Alexander: All Government information systems are required to meet specified security standards, which are regularly reviewed in the light of the prevailing threats. To ensure that Government Departments' most critical information processes are adequately protected, Departments are adopting the international standard for information security management.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Many private-sector organisations are involved with the public sector in these information systems. What assurance can my hon. Friend give that the partnerships between the private and public sectors are strong and will be maintained in a way that will ensure the security of the information?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. In October 2002, the central sponsor for information assurance was established by the Government. The CSIA works with both the public and private sectors, and international counterparts, to help safeguard the nation's IT and telecommunications services. We need to be able to tap in effectively to the expertise that exists in the private sector, as well as to that in the public sector. This is, of course, a very serious issue.

Richard Allan: Does the Minister agree that an ability to audit the source code of key software applications is an important element in securing Government information systems? Do the Government prefer to have accessible source code for their security systems?

Douglas Alexander: The issue of source codes is being considered across Government at the moment, in terms of both open-source software and the more general point of security that has been raised. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point that he has raised today.

Regulatory Reform Action Plan

Andrew Love: What progress has been made in implementing the regulatory reform action plan.

Douglas Alexander: We are on course to deliver the commitments set out in the regulatory reform action plan published last year. This is a three-year programme and, as of April this year, 31 per cent. of the measures in the plan had been completed. We will be publishing a formal progress report at the half-way stage in the autumn of this year.

Andrew Love: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of the concerns about the regulatory burden, especially among small businesses. He will also know that the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform is willing and able to take up the cudgels in this area on the Government's behalf. What action does he intend to take to ensure that the action plan is implemented by the end of this Parliament?

Douglas Alexander: I hope that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. This is a matter of concern to me, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is one of the Government's priorities. The National Small Business Council has recently published an important report on this area of work, to which I shall give due consideration. It is worth noting the comments from the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In two recent reports, the OECD identified the strength of the better-regulation agenda in Britain, compared with that of our international counterparts.

Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that the British Chambers of Commerce, no less, has said that red tape is growing like topsy, damaging jobs and our economy and destroying our international competitiveness? It is probably even more damaging than Labour's massive tax hikes, which businesses have had to suffer.

Douglas Alexander: If the hon. Gentleman wants to trade quotes from business associations, we should look at what Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry said in the Sunday Express on 12 January of this year. He said:
	"Britain is definitely the best place to do business, compared with the rest of Europe."
	Although we must of course continue to strengthen our work on regulation, Britain easily bears comparison with many international competitors.

Civil Service Recruitment (Disabled People)

Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on the recruitment of people with disabilities to the civil service.

Douglas Alexander: The Government are committed to employing disabled people and, as of October 2002, disabled staff accounted for 3.6 per cent. of the civil service. That is an increase from 2.8 per cent. in 1995.

Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend accept that 12.6 per cent. of the active UK population has a mobility problem and that those people are under-represented in the civil service? Will he give me an assurance that recruitment policies will be improved to widen access for people with disabilities to that major employer?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Of course, that is a matter on which we will continue to work. It might assist the House if I mention first the new recruitment guide that the Cabinet Office has published, which provides specific best practice instances of recruitment of disabled staff. Secondly, the Cabinet Office sponsors Ready, Willing, Able, an organisation that supports the recruitment of disabled staff. We are also introducing a summer placement scheme for disabled recruitment. In that regard, I take seriously the points that my hon. Friend has raised, but I hope that I have assured him that this is a matter that the Government are taking forward with some expedition.

Iraq

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the situation in Iraq before we rise for the summer recess.
	When the regime of Saddam Hussein collapsed just over three months ago, we made two key undertakings to the Iraqi people: first, that we would rally international support for their country's reconstruction; and secondly, that we would remain in Iraq only as long as it took to establish an elected, representative Iraqi Government, able themselves to maintain their internal security.
	First, on Iraq's reconstruction, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1483 on 22 May. That resolution gave the UN a vital role in all aspects of Iraq's development, including the political process. Under that resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed as his special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello, the highly respected United Nations high commissioner for human rights. Resolution 1483 freed Iraq from the UN sanctions regime, allowing oil revenues to be spent on humanitarian needs, economic reconstruction and other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq.
	On Sunday, an important step was taken towards fulfilling the second undertaking—the establishment of a sovereign Iraqi Government. The convening of the Iraqi governing council is a significant development. The council is the principal body of the interim administration called for in resolution 1483. Mr. Vieira de Mello has described the formation of the council as a "defining moment" for Iraq,
	"moving it back where it rightfully belongs: at peace with itself and as a full participant in the community of nations."
	The governing council has 25 members: 13 are Shi'a, 11 are Sunni and one is Christian. The interim chairman is a Shi'a cleric, Mohammed Bahr al-Uloum. Twenty per cent. of the council is Kurdish, representing their share of the population. Fourteen members lived in Iraq throughout much of Saddam Hussein's rule. Three members are women—12 per cent. of the council.
	The governing council will exercise significant powers. These should expand over time. I am placing in the Library a full list of members and the statement agreed between the governing council and the coalition provisional authority establishing the authorities of the council.
	Let me summarise the main points for the benefit of the House. The council will be involved in all the decisions that the coalition provisional authority takes from now on. It will nominate new Ministers to lead Iraq's ministries, hold them to account and have the power of dismissal. Its members will be able to represent Iraq internationally. It will determine the national budget for next year.
	The contrast with the Ba'athist regime could not be starker. Membership of the council itself emerged from an exhaustive process of consultation among representative groups, many of whose leaders I met in Baghdad two weeks ago. The council includes the leaders of 14 Iraqi parties, with prominent figures from Islamist groups and the Communist party. It will govern by consent not terror. It is the first time in living memory that the Shi'as, who form a majority in Iraq, have had a majority in any national governing body there.
	One of the council's first jobs will be to determine how a new constitution for Iraq should be prepared. Once adopted, that constitution will pave the way for the election of an Iraqi Government who will assume all the powers and responsibilities currently held by the coalition provisional authority. Sergio Vieira de Mello will brief the UN Security Council next Tuesday on those and other political developments and on the role of the governing council; the council has already announced that it will be sending a delegation to the Security Council for that meeting.
	Whatever position hon. Members may have taken on the need for military action, these developments will, I am sure, be welcomed by the whole House, but the progress that has been made is opposed by groups loyal to Saddam Hussein who resent the loss of their powers and wish to disrupt progress to political reform. The main problems are in the area to the north and west of Baghdad, the so-called Sunni triangle, from where much of the republican guard was recruited. Although those individuals do not pose a serious challenge to Iraq's democratic future, they do threaten coalition forces and those Iraqis who are helping to build their country. Nine British soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the end of large-scale combat operations in mid-April, bringing to 43 the total number of deaths of British service personnel since the beginning of military action. I know that I speak for the whole House in underlining our condolences to the families and friends of those killed, and in saluting both their courage and that of those who have been injured.
	When in Basra two weeks ago, I was able to speak to the close colleagues of the Royal Military Police officers who were killed at Majar-al-Kabir and to the paratroopers involved in the parallel engagements. The commitment and professionalism of those I met, and of all British forces, is something of which this country must be, and is, immensely proud. Of course, we pay equal tribute to the United States service personnel who have been killed or injured in Iraq.
	On the whole, the Shi'a south has been calm and overwhelmingly supportive of Saddam's demise. In the UK area of operations, joint patrols by British troops and Iraqi police have been under way since mid-April. Major cities in the north with mixed populations, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, have generally been calm. The coalition provisional authority estimates that 100 courtrooms and eight prison facilities are now operational. One of the CPA's top priorities has been to restore the rule of law in the capital, Baghdad. That is slowly taking place, although the situation is not yet satisfactory. Thirty-four Iraqi police stations in Baghdad are open 24 hours a day, and 9,000 police officers have returned to duty in the capital.
	There have also been improvements in the provision and delivery of essential services. The Iraqi national budget for the period July to December this year, announced by the CPA on 7 July, included increases for health care. The authority has also announced that all 240 hospitals in Iraq are now operational and that 98 per cent. of schools are open. When I was in Basra two weeks ago, the commander of the British forces told me that 17,000 students in the universities in their sector were taking their final examinations in the normal way.
	Reconstruction would be moving ahead more quickly were it not for the attacks by remnants of the old regime on the electricity and oil pipeline infrastructure. As a result Baghdad is receiving only between 70 and 90 per cent. of pre-war water supply, but across the entire country, more Iraqis have access to electricity supplies than before the war. Delivery of food through Iraq's public distribution system is now reaching the entire country. Preliminary figures for June show that food rations were distributed to about 26 million Iraqis in a target population of 27 million. Food distribution is being extended to the Marsh Arabs, a people who I understand received no food rations at all under Saddam Hussein. As the security situation in Iraq stabilises, the World Food Programme is increasingly using the port of Umm Qasr for its deliveries, and the £150 million in funding for humanitarian projects already committed by our own Department for International Development is beginning to have an impact on the ground.
	Reconstruction plainly requires a significant effort by the whole international community, however. A preliminary meeting of donors co-chaired by the CPA and the United Nations Development Programme was held in New York on 24 June; a full conference will be held in October. Countries are coming forward to join coalition forces. In addition to the 147,000 US and 11,000 UK service personnel in theatre, those forces include personnel from Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Norway, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Ukraine and Lithuania.
	On 18 March, the House voted by a majority of 263 to approve military action, principally because of Iraq's palpable failure to comply unconditionally and immediately with the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, by which the Security Council itself had said that Iraq's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its long-range missile systems and its non-compliance with a string of Security Council resolutions, dating back to 1991, posed a threat to international peace and security. The evidence on which that decision was based was overwhelmingly from open sources and was laid before the House in a number of Command Papers, which included UNMOVIC's 173-page report, "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes". I am in no doubt that the House's decision on 18 March is as justified today as it was when we took it.
	Of course, given the magnitude of the decisions that the House took, it is entirely right that Parliament should conduct its own inquiries into the decision to go to war. I know that the whole House is grateful to the Foreign Affairs Committee for its inquiry and to Members of both Houses on the Intelligence and Security Committee who are conducting a related inquiry. The Government will, of course, respond in detail in the normal way to their reports. The House will also wish to know that the Iraq survey group is now deployed and will report at appropriate times. However, the following may assist the House on the issue of yellowcake from Niger, which was also raised yesterday, among other things, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
	As I have already explained to the Foreign Affairs Committee, we had no knowledge that the documents given to the International Atomic Energy Agency were forged until February 2003, and in a letter last Friday to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I have placed in the Library, I set out the position relating to the report of Ambassador Joe Wilson. As I have made clear, we had, and have, other separate information available to us. Moreover, the 24 September dossier itself concluded that unless Iraq obtained fissile material—yellowcake is not fissile material—Iraq would need at least five years to be in a position to produce a nuclear weapon.
	With the establishment of the governing council, the Iraqi people have embarked on the process of building their own future. More than 150 newspapers have been launched since the fall of Baghdad. Major cities and towns across Iraq now have municipal councils, where Iraqis are increasingly taking responsibility for local issues. Iraqis are speaking out and demonstrating with a vigour not seen for decades. At the launch of the governing council last Sunday, we saw many of the features of democracy. Yes, there was criticism, strong disagreement and compromise—all now possible in the new Iraq, all previously punishable by arrest or worse under Saddam Hussein.
	Meanwhile, the scale of the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's regime becomes more apparent by the day. Tens of thousands of bodies have so far been unearthed in mass graves. In its latest assessment, I am told that the Red Cross estimates that 300,000 Iraqis are "missing"—the victims, in the Red Cross's terms, of "internal violence". I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for her tireless work as our special envoy on human rights. The leader of the British forensic team in Iraq, Professor Margaret Cox, has commented that Saddam's regime
	"was propped up with the bones of the Iraqi people buried beneath its sands."
	The dead and the missing are the most painful reminder of Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship. They should also become the greatest symbol of our determination to give Iraq the future that its people so richly deserve.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advanced sight of most of it—I think that there were one or two additional words.
	It has been a matter of concern that this is the first time that the Foreign Secretary has come to the House of his own accord to report on the status of Iraq since 12 May. It is now clear that Government preparations for handling the problems of post-war Iraq were not all that they were cracked up to be. It may be that the Foreign Secretary decided to wait until he had something more positive to report. I agree that what he has reported today is positive, and I thank him for that. I also agree that we must never forget the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime and the atrocities that he visited on his people.
	I, too, want to pay tribute to the tremendous work that our armed forces, and other British personnel, are carrying out in very difficult circumstances. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. I also pay tribute to those who have died while selflessly working to help restore and maintain public order and the rule of law in Iraq. We can indeed be proud of them, and our thoughts are with their families. We warmly welcome the recent appointment of the national governing council. It is vital that authority over Iraq is restored to Iraqis as soon as possible. This is an important beginning, and we wish the council well.
	What role did the British Government have in choosing the members of the governing council? Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied with the balance between formerly exiled Iraqis and those who have been living in Iraq throughout the last period? I note that, along with the real and important powers that he described, the council will also help draw up a constitution in preparation for elections. Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN's special envoy to Iraq has said that elections
	"probably will be held in 2004".
	That seems a very swift time scale for the council and the coalition to prepare a constitution and to prepare for elections. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that estimate of time scale?
	In that context, what steps are being taken to communicate to the people of Iraq ideas on plans for the future government of Iraq? Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that without an effective communication system there will be a real risk of fuelling anxiety and hostility among the people of Iraq? I see that Ambassador Paul Bremer has a veto over the council. Can the Foreign Secretary outline the conditions under which Mr. Bremer can exercise that veto?
	The Foreign Secretary rightly made clear that restoring security and order must remain the coalition's top priority. Does he believe that the coalition has enough peacekeeping forces on the ground to achieve that? There has been much speculation about the role that NATO might play in the longer-term stabilisation of Iraq. Can he explain why NATO's role is still so limited? Now that NATO is taking over the international security assistance force mandate in Kabul on 11 August, cannot NATO play a similar role in Iraq?
	What is the Government's assessment of the threat to coalition forces in Iraq? Are the attacks on our soldiers just from remnants of the regime and other rogue elements, as the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest in his statement, or are there signs of a more co-ordinated guerrilla campaign, with the objective of forcing the coalition on to the defensive and, eventually, to withdraw?
	I have listened to what the Foreign Secretary has had to say about yellowcake from Niger. This is yet one more element of the web of confusion that the Government have managed to create over the status of intelligence material relating to weapons of mass destruction. We will be debating this whole area in the House tomorrow. For the moment, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the confusion, the charge and counter-charge, and the different voices within the Government on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, are entirely of the Government's making? It is damaging not only the reputation of the Foreign Secretary but the credibility of the Government and of the intelligence itself. It is also beginning to cloud the important work that we need to continue carrying out in Iraq. The Government cannot allow this drift of credibility to continue.
	When will the Prime Minister publish the new evidence of weapons of mass destruction that he promised us in St. Petersburg on 31 May? Surely the time has come to clear this mess up. Why will he not set up a full, independent, forensic, judicial inquiry, which can establish the truth and restore confidence in British intelligence, which is so vital to our national interest? It is time that the Government got a grip of the situation and stopped this messing about.

Jack Straw: Let me deal in turn with the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. On statements to the House, I think that, generally speaking, Members believe that I make myself available for explanation very readily. There has been a debate, which was initiated by the Liberal Democrats. I am grateful to them, and the matter was well aired there. Iraq dominated Question Time last Tuesday. In addition, I certainly do not feel underexposed in terms of accountability, given the fact that I have given evidence in public and private session for five hours before the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is probably something of a record. The House needs to accept that one of the things that has changed in the past 20 years is that there is much greater involvement by Members in cross-examining Ministers, quite rightly—not only in the Chamber, but in Select Committees.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Government's role in choosing the governing council. When I was in Iraq two weeks ago, one of the issues raised by those I was speaking to—some of the people now on the governing council—and publicly by Mr. Sistani, who is a cleric associated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shi'a organisation, was whether the governing council would be, as it were, imposed by the UK-US coalition provisional authority or whether it would be able to derive its legitimacy—notwithstanding the fact that it had to be appointed rather than elected—in a more representative way.
	Essentially, we were committed to doing the latter. Yes, the CPA made it clear that senior members of the Ba'athist regime would not be acceptable, but they would not have been acceptable to any other members of the governing council either. So we did not impose any individuals. It is my belief that, in the existing circumstances, this body has a high degree of consent from the Iraqis. Of course, it is only an interim council. We have to move from where we are to where we go next.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about Mr. Vieira de Mello talking about elections for 2004. That is a comment that he has made. We have not yet made a judgment about what would be appropriate. We will have to see. Above all, we have to get this process, which the governing council is embarked on, to draft a constitution. Through that process, we will see where we go next.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about a communication strategy. I entirely agree about the need for a more effective communication strategy from the governing council and also from the CPA. He asked whether there are sufficient forces. So far as the US is concerned, that is obviously a matter for US commanders. As for the British forces there, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister have made it clear that we keep the level of British forces under constant review and we take account very strongly of the advice that we receive from the commanders on the ground as well as from the chief of the defence forces.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked for my assessment of the attacks on US and UK forces, principally on US forces. The assessment varies very much from area to area. Sometimes we are dealing with very small areas. Overall, it looks as though remnants of the Ba'athist regime along with criminals—some serious and others petty, but all of whom were let out by Saddam just before the military action and as it took place—are involved. That is our best assessment. Attacks are no doubt organised in small areas, but there is less information about the degree to which they are organised across the country. We do not believe that they are. However, one message has been delivered very firmly and clearly by US and UK forces, which is that we are not going to allow this activity to get in the way of the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq or of the facility by which the Iraqis can build—not rebuild—a democracy for themselves for the first time.
	The right hon. Gentleman then asked about the issues of intelligence. Let me make this clear. One of the things that emerged during the discussion on the 2 February dossier, from the Foreign Affairs Committee report, was that while, yes, there were mistakes made in the provenance—the process—behind that document, which I have apologised for, the FAC described the contents of the document as important. At no stage has it challenged the veracity of its contents. Its provenance should, of course, have been made clear.
	As to the 24 September dossier, that was based, as, again, all sides of the Select Committee acknowledged, on assessments made by the Joint Intelligence Committee. We stand by those. It is inevitable that, given that there was controversy about the decision to take military action, questions will be raised, which is perfectly legitimate, but we stand by the assessments made.
	I also remind the House—this was the position of the Opposition as well as of our side as we took military action—that, overwhelmingly, the decision to take military action was not based on intelligence assessments. It was based on the fact that—[Interruption.] It was not based on intelligence. It was based on the fact that resolution 1441 emphatically laid on Saddam Hussein, in open terms, obligations for him at long last to fulfil disarmament obligations, which had been extant but unfulfilled by Iraq for 13 years over a stream of Security Council resolutions; that all of us knew that the Iraqi regime had had a nuclear programme; that it had used chemical weapons; that it had a wholly concealed and very large biological weapons programme; that it had thrown out the inspectors for fear of further discoveries at the end of 1998; and that even having been given what not we but the whole United Nations described as a final opportunity to disarm, Saddam Hussein refused to comply unconditionally and completely with the requirements of resolution 1441.
	For that reason, this House, by a very large majority, made the decision to take military action on 18 March—after an ultimatum had been given, which Saddam Hussein also refused. As I have said already, that decision, upholding the authority of the UN, was justified on 18 March and it is justified today.

Menzies Campbell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement. Like him, I agree that we should be unstinting in our support for UK forces, and unstinting indeed in our sympathy for those who have died or been wounded in Iraq. The whole House will welcome, as he rightly predicted, the progress in civil affairs that he was able to outline.
	May I ask the Foreign Secretary a number of specific questions? What is the Government's view on the number of British forces that will be required to remain in Iraq, and for how long? Are UK forces in the same position as the forces of the US, whose tour of duty has today been extended indefinitely? How many of the dead and missing date from when the UK Government supported Saddam Hussein, who was by then already steeped in the blood of his own countrymen and countrywomen?
	The Foreign Secretary will not be surprised if I return to the issue of an inquiry. I ask him to consider this: does not the absence of chemical and biological weapons, the embarrassing and apparently escalating dispute between Washington and London over Niger, the failure to find Scud missiles and the controversy over the February dossier make an irresistible case for an inquiry independent of Parliament and led by a senior judge? If the Government's position is as strong as he has set it out to be, both here today and elsewhere, what do they have to fear? Finally, might I ask him this question? If he was in opposition, would he not be expressing exactly the same view?

Jack Straw: On the number of British forces, as I have told the House, there are 11,000 in theatre. The number is kept under review, as is the duration of their deployment, but we have already made it clear that the forces will be there as long as is necessary, but no longer, to secure a viable democratic, representative Government who in turn can secure their own security.
	I am sorry, but I did not answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the role of NATO, which is being used in Afghanistan. All I say to him is that that is under discussion. As he will know, there are 18 members on NATO's military committee and 19 on the NATO Council itself. Decisions have to be made by unanimity, which he strongly supports in other contexts.

Menzies Campbell: Qualified majority voting.

Jack Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing QMV for NATO, let him come forward. It makes for swifter decisions but, in this field, it produces a certain amount of discontent.

Bernard Jenkin: An acquis.

Jack Straw: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is muttering that we need an acquis.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked how many of those who have been found dead or declared missing by the Red Cross were killed or went missing many years ago. I do not know what the time lines are. We know that up until Saddam Hussein's demise in mid-April, he ruled the country by terror, not consent. His main methods were imprisonment, torture, the denial of the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and, when necessary, death. Many people were killed under that brutal regime.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about an inquiry. We have debated that before and we shall debate it tomorrow. I was not in the same position as him when I was in opposition. I supported the Falklands war at its beginning and end—I was right to do so. An inquiry on the Falklands that was separate from the House had to be established because the House did not have the mechanism to hold its own inquiries. I believe that the combination of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee is appropriate. The House accepted the establishment of the ISC without a vote. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the members of the Committee, who are as eminent as those who served on the Franks committee, and to have some faith in the ability of such eminent Members from all parties in both Houses to reach independent judgments.

Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend has given a positive report on the progress of the reconstruction of both physical infrastructure, such as electricity and water supplies, and governance, with the establishment of the new council. Is he therefore worried that the picture that our media give the British public is one of looting, shooting and general mayhem in which the population wants the end of the coalition forces' presence? Returning British civil servants reject the gloomy doomsayers and paint a picture of a talented people who are getting back to work and want to make a success of their country after the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. Will my right hon. Friend try to strengthen the information side of the coalition provisional authority so that a rather more balanced picture may be conveyed to the British public?

Jack Straw: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend says. We accept the need to strengthen further the communication strategy of the coalition provisional authority and, as the shadow Foreign Secretary said, to ensure that the governing council—quite rightly that has more natural legitimacy with the Iraqi people—will be able to communicate. However, Ministers in a democracy are not responsible for how the media report, and nor should we be. I venture the opinion that it would take rather more than improved communications in Baghdad to get the focus of British newspapers away from where it is at present—no doubt they are pursing their own specific agendas—and for them instead to tell their readers about the situation on the ground. As my right hon. Friend said, that situation is rather different from that portrayed in several newspapers.

Jonathan Sayeed: If the governing council or the Iraqi people decide that they would like Iraq to be divided into three autonomous or semi-autonomous regions, notwithstanding likely Turkish objections, would the Government support the decision?

Jack Straw: We would not support that. The United Nations made it clear in resolutions 1441 and 1483 that it would not support anything that would undermine the current territorial integrity of Iraq. Despite that, there are opportunities for various degrees of devolution to occur. I made the point to a group of Iraqi leaders two weeks ago that our experience shows that devolution need not occur on a symmetrical basis. Indeed, I believe the fact that we have developed asymmetrical systems is the reason why we have been better able to bind the Union. That is a lesson as the Iraqis develop their own constitution.

Ernie Ross: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. When our colleagues were alleging that they were concerned about the Iraqi people before voting against the only means of giving them their freedom, we made the point that when the people of Iraq were free, their ability to run their country would be demonstrated. That message is flowing through the middle east and people are finding out that we are living up to our words. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is having an impact on the middle east peace process by helping the Palestinians and Israelis to resolve that problem?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not resile from the fact that that was not the principal basis for the House's decision to go to war on 18 March, but it is worth bearing in mind that resolution 1441 deplored Saddam's appalling human rights record. The simple fact is that containment was not resolving the problem and that it was getting worse and worse. Irrespective of the arguments about whether military action was appropriate, if we had continued with a policy of containment, the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein would have continued—that is just reality.
	On my hon. Friend's second point, it is true that we were told that if military action were taken in Iraq, there would be "conflagration" throughout the region. That has not happened. There was not a single Arab or Islamic leader who did not himself want to see the back of Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt in my mind that the removal of Saddam Hussein has made progress toward a peaceful solution for the Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians infinitely easier in practice.

John Stanley: Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that UN resolution 1441 refers not only to weapons of mass destruction programmes but to the weapons themselves? Does he further agree that the basis on which the House voted for war in Iraq was to disarm not merely Saddam Hussein's programmes of weapons of mass destruction but the weapons themselves?

Jack Straw: Yes. The resolution is quite clear. There were 15 members of the Security Council. Two members—the UK and the US—took part in the military action and 13 did not, as a matter of record. Those members reached separate conclusions about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and it was they who said that the proliferation of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile systems and his defiance of the United Nations posed a threat to international peace and security.

George Mudie: I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary has noted the statement issued by the new Iraqi governing council that savaged the Arab media for romanticising the deposed dictator Saddam Hussein. It also attacked the BBC for
	"not telling the truth about Iraq."
	Does he share my concern that when faced with 300,000 missing people and mass graves and given that a vicious and murderous dictator has been removed and that freedom has been brought to a whole country for the first time in 20 years, it is strange that the BBC, and especially the "Today" programme, is obsessed with only bad-news stories about Iraq that damage the Government and the Prime Minister personally?

Jack Straw: All I would say to my hon. Friend is that we have to accept the media as they are. It is no part of the duty of Governments in a democracy to interfere. However, I think it is the sentiment of the whole House, and certainly the sentiment in much of Iraq, that although the BBC should pursue particular agendas if it thinks that they are consistent with its charter, it should also ensure that there is a more balanced and comprehensive reporting of the reality on the ground in Iraq, which in respect of the rebuilding of Iraq is better news than it was.

Andrew MacKay: In his statement, the Foreign Secretary listed a number of countries, from Ukraine to New Zealand, which are apparently sending troops to Iraq. Significantly, he did not mention the numbers, which I suspect are very small. Is it not inevitable that we will soon need more troops from other countries because otherwise we will face overstretch? Is it correct that the French are blocking that in NATO?

Jack Straw: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, a number of other countries have expressed reservations within NATO. The discussions will continue. As for the numbers, I am happy to write to him and put them before the House. In some cases, the number is small. For example, Lithuania had no armed forces before it was turned into an independent country following the collapse of the old Soviet empire, so its contribution is necessarily going to be small. In other cases, such as Poland, the contribution will be substantial.
	I note that the number of British service personnel has reduced from 45,000 at its peak to around 11,000 in the whole theatre—some are in the Gulf rather than in Iraq itself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff keep overall troop levels under careful review. I have received no representations from them that at this level, or levels around which the number might fluctuate, the services will be subject to overstretch.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that if Iraq's oil is to be used for the purpose of reconstruction, that decision—certainly the mortgaging of the oil future and oil revenues—can only be taken by those who really represent the Iraqi people? To do otherwise would simply lead to the suspicion that the decision to invade, at least on America's part, was based on oil and not for the reasons of which the US Administration are trying to persuade us. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government will not be party to a mortgaging of Iraqi oil unless that is agreed to by proper representatives of the Iraqi people?

Jack Straw: Let me satisfy my hon. Friend. Resolution 1483 lays down clearly the conditions under which all revenues, in particular oil revenues, can be used, and have to be used, for the benefit of the people of Iraq. The war was never about oil. Everyone knows that. In the initial stages, the financial responsibility rests on the coalition provisional authority, because it has to rest somewhere. As quickly as possible, it will move to the governing council. In any event, there are clear and substantial monitoring arrangements, supervised by a monitoring board established by 1483. There is also the ever-present figure of Vieira de Mello, the UN Secretary-General's special representative, who is required to make regular reports to the Security Council to ensure that 1483 is complied with.

Alex Salmond: If, as the Foreign Secretary now claims, the decision to go to war was not based on intelligence information, why did the Government keep providing it in the form of dossiers to the House and the UN before we made decisions? If the Prime Minister of Australia is prepared to apologise and the head of the CIA is prepared to take the rap for believing British intelligence, why does the Foreign Secretary stick doggedly to his story about the reality of the uranium imports from Niger to Iraq? If that story of the falsified and forged documents has caused so much embarrassment to the Government, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, what inquiries have been made to find out who falsified and forged those documents?

Jack Straw: My point—it is a point that I have made often enough and is well illustrated by analysis of all the speeches made in our debates, especially since Christmas—is that the intelligence assessments that were provided formed part of the background, but they were not the heart of the argument and never were. They simply were not. The argument moved on.
	The issue last September and October was whether the UN would be used to give what amounted to a final opportunity to Iraq. Everyone was pleased when we negotiated resolution 1441. Iraq was given a final opportunity and, as I explained, it failed to fulfil the clear undertakings required under 1441. The issue before the House in March, in shorthand, was whether containment was going to work, notwithstanding Iraq's defiance, or whether we had to give it a further very final ultimatum and, if necessary, take military action. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at what was said and the nature of the argument, not to rewrite history following one reference on the "Today" programme on 29 May. That was simply not part of the argument. No one in the House, for example, mentioned 45 minutes once during the debate on 18 March.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the issue of who forged the documents is a subject of an inquiry, in particular by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to which the documents were submitted. We did not know that they were forged. We had no information about that until mid-February and no confirmation of that until the IAEA gave its report to the Security Council on 7 March. On the overall issue of assessments, I have explained—I gave this information in memorandum to the FAC, and the ISC will inquire further—that the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee stands by the assessments that he and his staff, not Ministers, made.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Secretary of State put in the Library of the House in the next 24 hours the dates on which the security and intelligence services learned that the Niger documents were forged and the date on which Ministers were advised that they were forged?

Jack Straw: I will do my best to comply, if not in 24 hours, then as quickly as possible.

Hugh Robertson: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that military operations thrive on a simple clear aim. Given that we have 11,000 servicemen and women deployed, what is that aim?

Jack Straw: The aim is to secure Iraq, to rid Iraq of the remains of the Saddam regime and to assist the Iraqi people, now through the governing council, to create conditions in which they are responsible for their internal security. I think all the forces are aware of that and they are meeting that challenge with their customary professionalism and very high standards.

Neil Gerrard: The Foreign Secretary has said again that it was not intelligence that led to the decision to go to war, but breaches of UN resolutions, although the rest of the Security Council did not feel able to support anything after 1441. Is it not the case that those of us who were sceptical and who opposed the case for war were told time and again that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, was still developing weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them? If that did not come from intelligence sources, where did it come from?

Jack Straw: Most of it came from documents that I placed before the House which were entirely open. No one can read the last report of UNSCOM made just after its delegation was thrown out of Iraq at the end of 1998 or the 173 pages of unanswered disarmament questions submitted to the Security Council after it had finished its meeting on 7 March without being absolutely clear about the capabilities of Iraq and its wilful failure to resolve the issues. If Iraq had nothing to fear, it would have dealt with those questions. It failed to do so. Of course the intelligence assessment informed the debate, but let us be clear that the issue before the House was whether the policy of containment had been laid out or whether we had reached a moment at which, in our judgment, it was right to take military action to enforce the will of the UN. The House voted in favour of that by a margin of 263.

David Ruffley: I hope that the Foreign Secretary will accept that the success of Iraqi reconstruction will, to some degree, be affected by the trial of Guantanamo bay detainees captured in Afghanistan. In that context, do the British Government believe that President Bush is acting wholly within and in accordance with international law and US law in setting up military commissions to try those detainees?

Jack Straw: I am not entirely sure what is the direct connection, but intensive discussions on the issue continue with the American Administration. That is the current position, and as soon as there is anything to tell the House, the House will be told.

David Winnick: Let us be fair to the BBC concerning at least one of its media outlets. Did my right hon. Friend see last night's "Newsnight" that broadcast films made by the Saddam regime which showed savage beatings, torture and places of execution? Does he not agree that there is a responsibility on every Member of this House who opposed the war to tell us how one of the most terrifying and brutal dictatorships could have been destroyed without the action taken at the time?

Jack Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have said, those who supported containment—I understood and respected their view, but did not agree with it—have an equal responsibility to acknowledge the fact that their policy would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He would have been reinvigorated and re-empowered as the troops were pulled back from the Gulf, and over time he would have tried to secure by deception a clean bill of health from UNMOVIC. The reign of terror over his people would have become infinitely worse, as would his support for international rejectionist terrorists—not least those working in the occupied regions. That is one reason why I say with confidence that a consequence of the removal of Saddam Hussein has unquestionably been to help to create a more benign environment in which a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians is much more possible.

Keith Simpson: The Foreign Secretary has made it clear—twice, I think—in his statement and in reply to hon. Members that our reasons for taking military action were based very much on Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations. As somebody who absolutely supported the Government's action, I must say that the debate was undoubtedly influenced by reports based on intelligence not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that there was a clear and present danger of his using them.
	I do not know whether weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq—I see that we have slipped into using the term "programmes", which is more vague. None the less, I am genuinely concerned that, if we do not find weapons of mass destruction or there is continuing debate about intelligence, should the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues face a clear and present danger in a year or two and ask the House for a decision on immediate military action, the House will say, "Sorry, but we've heard that before and we don't agree with you."

Jack Straw: Of course I understand the interest in further evidence of the scale and extent of Saddam's programmes. Sometimes when I listen to these debates, I think that some of those who are now criticising the Government—not the hon. Gentleman—must be inhabiting a parallel universe in which, hey-presto, Saddam Hussein never had any nuclear capability, had never used chemical weapons against his own people or the Iranians and, despite evidence of concealment, had never denied that he had a biological weapons programme. He denied and denied that, and it was discovered only after his son-in-law had defected. Indeed, when the representatives of UNSCOM—the previous inspectors—went in, they discovered a much larger biological weapons programme than they had ever anticipated. This is not a matter of looking in the crystal; it was in the book.
	Of course I understand and appreciate that some of the intelligence assessments formed a background to the argument, but I invite the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members to look at the terms of the motion passed by the House by a majority of 263 votes on 18 March. That was about the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of resolution 1441.

Glenda Jackson: But surely my right hon. Friend cannot be unaware that the unwillingness, certainly of my constituents, to accept the rosy picture that he and other Ministers are painting of post-conflict Iraq is based on their total disbelief of the Government's reasons for us going to war in the first place. It is not possible for the Foreign Secretary to stand at that Dispatch Box and argue on the grounds of resolution 1441, which was based on the premise that Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction—a situation which the Prime Minister found still to be the case. Indeed, he discounted as absurd the thesis that those weapons had been unilaterally destroyed before the war began. Until the basic questions of precisely what was intelligence and how contemporaneous it was are answered, my constituents will remain exceedingly concerned about why British troops were sent to war.

Jack Straw: I do not accept that. I say to my hon. Friend—

Glenda Jackson: Not me, my constituents.

Jack Straw: I say to my hon. Friend, and through her to her constituents, that the judgment that Saddam Hussein had proliferated weapons of mass destruction, had long-range missiles and had defied the Security Council over 13 years was not just ours or that of the United States. It was the judgment of France, of Russia, of China and of the 10 elected members of the Security Council—also of Syria.

Glenda Jackson: Well, where are they?

Jack Straw: A good deal of what was stated in the 24 September dossier in respect, for example, of the concealment of missile systems has already been confirmed to be wholly accurate and proved. If my hon. Friend had had her way, we would never have discovered the 500-plus missile engines. [Interruption.] They were there. The Iraqi survey group is now conducting its work. [Interruption.]
	Let me deal with the way in which Saddam concealed his weapons. Recently, CNN reported that an Iraqi scientist, Mahaddi Ubaydi, who I am told was head of the centrifuge uranium enrichment programme, had volunteered information to the United States about centrifuge parts and documents concealed in his garden—[Interruption.] Yes, the documents related—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the Foreign Secretary to answer.

Jack Straw: I ask my hon. Friend to think about what she is saying. The documents related to 1991. She knows that it was possible to build nuclear weapons in 1991. The bigger question is why an Iraqi scientist was concealing those documents and centrifuge parts under a rose bush in his garden. He told CNN that he was ordered to hide them so as to be able to rebuild the bomb programme at some time in the future, which is exactly what we said.
	Moreover, David Kay, a former United Nations arms inspector said:
	"It begins to tell us how huge our job is. Remember, this material was buried in a barrel behind his house in a rose garden. There's no way that that would have been discovered by normal international inspections. I couldn't have done it. My successors couldn't have done it."
	That kind of concealment shows the extent of the deception practised by Saddam Hussein and is further evidence of the threat. Yes, it will be difficult, precisely because of the circumstances of concealment, to find the material, but gradually it is being found and so is other evidence.

Andrew Mitchell: The Foreign Secretary was clearly right in his statement to underline the growing importance of the United Nations, the international community and particularly the pivotal role of Mr. Vieira de Mello. Following the announcement earlier this week, is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to tell the House which countries will be sending members of the team of experts that will pave the way for elections in Iraq?

Jack Straw: No, I am not, but if I have more information when I get back to the office, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary has agreed to continue with matters relating to the statement, but the questions must be brief and there should be only one supplementary.

Tam Dalyell: Could we return to the factual questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about when the Government first knew that the documents were forged? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked who forged the documents, on whose behalf and why.

Jack Straw: February this year is the answer to the first part of the question and, in answer to the second, we do not know, but we would like to.

Douglas Hogg: What steps will be taken to ensure that the constitution drawn up by the unelected council is acceptable to the various peoples and regions in Iraq? The Foreign Secretary's statement was silent about the armed services—when and how will a reformed army, capable of supporting the civil power, be brought into being?

Jack Straw: The governing council, which is necessarily unelected at the moment, but far more representative than anything under the Saddam regime, has the job not only of drafting the constitution but of consulting widely on it. Although I am merely speculating, it would have to be endorsed using some democratic method by the people of Iraq. That is a guarantee. Moreover, de Mello has a clear role in respect of that. As for the reform of the armed forces, the first stage has been to establish a reformed police service, and the next stage will be to establish a reformed security service, including an army.

Mike Gapes: If there are to be elections in 2004, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that UK political parties and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be involved in the preparations to assist the process of building pluralistic democracy in Iraq?

Jack Straw: We will make available to the governing council the excellent facilities and advice of the Westminster Foundation. Whether it is used is a matter for it, not us.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Foreign Secretary still completely convinced that Saddam Hussein tried to source uranium in Niger? If that is the case, can he say more about the intelligence sources that pointed to that but were apparently denied to the Americans?

Jack Straw: I am satisfied that the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee who made those assessments has told me today, and has repeatedly told me, that he stands by them. They came from sources other than those that were available in America. That is the position, and it was set out very clearly in the dossier that we published on 24 September.
	Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that a senior member of the Iraqi Communist party came to see me this morning. He used to come here 20 years ago, bringing me names of dead, executed and disappeared people. He was against the war, but on Friday the Iraqi Communist party decided to join the governing body, which it regards as a momentous step forward in the history of Iraq. For the first time, the council will represent the diverse peoples of Iraq—the Sunni, the Shi'a, the Arab, the Kurd, the Turkoman and the Assyrian. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a marvellous opportunity which should not be forgotten.
	Mr. Straw: I hope that the whole House takes note of that. The Iraqi Communist party, along with any Shi'a party and many others, simply could not operate under the Saddam regime. They had no rights, and were subject to the terror of Saddam.
	Patrick Mercer (Newark): May I pay tribute to the valour of the soldiers of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who fought with such bravery at Majar-al-Kabir a couple of weeks ago? However, there is no doubt that that attack was not orchestrated. The incident last week in which a young officer of the King's Regiment was wounded was, serving officers tell me, of a wholly different order of orchestration and organisation. On top of that, this week we have had a broadcast from a voice claiming to be that of al-Qaeda in the Gulf, saying that that organisation is active. Despite the Foreign Secretary's claims about not using intelligence to launch us into war, what is his assessment, based on intelligence reports, of al-Qaeda and the threat that it poses to our troops?
	Mr. Straw: I have nothing directly to add to the answer that I have given to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. Obviously, the position has been carefully studied, and as I said to the House, it will vary from area to area. Of course, there are people both inside and outside Iraq who wish to make mischief, and whose vested interest is in ensuring or seeking to ensure that Iraq does not succeed. Our absolute determination, on the other hand, with the Iraqi governing council is to make sure that the new Iraq succeeds, and we shall win.
	Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): May I make it crystal clear to the Foreign Secretary that I and, I suspect, many other Members did not vote for military action simply on the basis of weapons of mass destruction? We did it on the grounds of wider issues and the judgment, moral and political, that we needed to take action because of all the reasons in resolution 1441 and the underlying situation. Let us not fall into the terrible trap of focusing on one issue and rewriting history to try to pretend that there was not a major problem causing destabilisation in the middle east.
	Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. People who take an alternative point of view—and they are entitled to do so—must recognise that their inaction would have had very serious consequences for the Iraqi people and the wider region.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Whatever the constituent parts of the assembly, total power in Iraq is still in the hands of the United States. The American people have been warned that this is something that may continue for years. Will we remain for as long as the American Administration considers it necessary, or is it possible that we will leave of our own accord?

Jack Straw: As with the dispatch of troops, it is for the House to decide how long we remain there.

David Borrow: When I was in Basra in early June, it was clear that the electricity and water supplies were in a better condition than before the war and that law and order were improving. However, I read newspaper reports this morning that seemed to suggest that there were serious problems with the electricity and water supplies, and focused on lawlessness in Basra. Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the situation in Basra has got better or worse since early June and, if it has got worse, what action the Government will take to improve the situation?

Jack Straw: There will of course be incidents in different parts of Iraq which will result in the situation varying from day to day, but the overall assessment, as recently as this morning, is that particularly in the south the situation is getting better in many respects. Electricity and water supplies, for example, in most, but not all, parts of the south are better than they were before the regime fell.

Alice Mahon: The Foreign Secretary reminded us that the invasion was not cost free, when he asked us to remember the coalition dead. Can we also remember the 6,000 Iraqis who died and the 15,000 who were injured? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that this business of uranium from Africa is rapidly becoming a farce for the British Government? Despite the attempts of the US Administration to recoup the situation, President Bush and the Prime Minister are apparently no longer singing from the same hymn sheet. This is about trust between our Government and the British people, so will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the request for an independent inquiry, as I do not think that anything else will satisfy my constituents?

Jack Straw: I have to say that many of us have constituents who might otherwise take a similar position, but on this they all have different views. I repeat to my hon. Friend that, when I was on the Opposition Benches, I called for the establishment of a parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. The Committee that was subsequently set up is composed of people who are at least as eminent and trustworthy as the very eminent and trustworthy members of the Franks committee 21 years ago, and we should show faith in the job that they are doing along with the job done by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us worked with representatives of the Iraqi Communist party to oppose the invasion? Since then, we have worked with them on reconstruction and development of democracy, and we do not think that there is anything inconsistent about our involvement in those two activities. Can my right hon. Friend tell us, from the material that he is placing in the Library about the make-up of the Iraqi governing council, how much detail will be provided? Will details of the profession, political party, trade union links, press links and connections, and background in Iraq and elsewhere in the world be supplied? That is important to many of us who are looking towards the future reconstruction of Iraq.

Jack Straw: A lot of information is on the sheets that will go into the Library. If my hon. Friend wishes for more, he should get in touch with me.

Helen Jackson: How many prisoners are being held by coalition forces, and where? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of the United States is appalling in its disregard for international human rights in the way that it is treating 680 detainees at Guantanamo bay? Can he give us an absolute assurance that the highest levels of fair justice will be exercised when dealing with however many prisoners are being held in Iraq?

Jack Straw: I assume my hon. Friend is speaking about prisoners held by the US and UK—

Helen Jackson: Coalition forces.

Jack Straw: Yes, by coalition forces. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact number straight away. I will write to her and place the reply in the Library of the House. I accept entirely the clear obligations of the coalition provisional authority under international law and under resolution 1483. For whatever reason they are held, people must be treated with proper regard for their human rights.

Jon Owen Jones: Further to the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), when the Foreign Secretary says that we will remain in Iraq for as long as it takes to establish elected representative Iraqi government and internal security, given that we are by far the junior partner in the coalition, is he not saying, in effect, that we will remain in Iraq for as long as the Americans want us to? What capacity do we have for independent judgment about these issues?

Jack Straw: It is the confidence that I have, which I am sorry my hon. Friend does not share, in the judgment of this House of Commons. It is we who decide whether or not troops should take up positions and how long they should stay there. Of course we are working with the Americans, but that is up to us. There are many situations in the world in which we do not join the Americans. In this case, we do. That is an independent decision by the House of Commons. My hon. Friend should have faith.

Anne Campbell: Has any decision yet been made about the considerable financial debt of the previous Ba'athist regime?

Jack Straw: No decisions have been made. The matter is covered to a degree by 1483. However, quite a lot of the debtors—sovereign states and others—have been in touch with the coalition provisional authority to ask for their money, and we are considering their claims.

Louise Ellman: Have any serious challenges been made to the credibility of reports from the UK forensic team that there are at least 50 mass graves and evidence of at least 300,000 murders during Saddam's regime? How many more people would have died or been tortured if Saddam had been left in power?

Jack Straw: I have seen no challenges to those figures, horrifying though they are. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that we grieve for anybody who has been killed or injured in whatever circumstances in Iraq. We do not know the exact number of people who were killed as a result of coalition action, but I grieve for them. I know for certain that within a year, far fewer people will have died as a result of coalition action and far more will have been free than ever would have occurred under the Saddam regime.

Paul Flynn: Members of two of the bereaved families have publicly asked the agonising question, "Did our loved ones die in vain?" For the first time in our history, it was we MPs who took the decision to send our soldiers to kill and be killed. Because of that, we cannot make independent judgments on our own decisions, whether we do it individually or collectively as Committees. Do we not need to give those bereaved families not just sincere condolences from every Member of the House, but an assurance that the reasons for the war will be exposed faithfully? Cannot that be done only by a fully independent inquiry?

Jack Straw: No doubt we will discuss the matter further tomorrow, but I do not accept that. I shall develop the point tomorrow. My hon. Friend is right to this extent: it was not quite the first time that a substantive vote was taken, but it was the first time in the circumstances. I am proud to be a member of a Government who introduced that constitutional change, which will stand for all time. Of course, responsibilities go with it, but I do not accept that in a House of 651 Members, those whom we have chosen to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee are not capable of independence of judgment in the circumstances. It must be acknowledged—this could not be examined by some independent judicial inquiry, as it is a political issue—that overwhelmingly, the basis on which we went to war was 1441. People talk about dossiers. I remind the House that those were the two dossiers that I submitted to the House in February and March, containing page after page of material, above all from UNMOVIC and the IAEA, revealing the extent of Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the will of the United Nations. That was at the heart of the argument before the House on 18 March.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that both he and the Prime Minister, on numerous occasions and in numerous interviews, told the House and the public that the purpose of the war against Iraq was to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction? Does he accept that what he said today is an attempt at rewriting history, pretending that that was not the motive that was given, when it clearly was the motive that was given? In those circumstances, why does he not support an independent judicial inquiry that can make a judgment on the assertions that were made, the documents that were presented and the arguments that were put for war against Iraq, and the reality of what has happened since?

Jack Straw: What I said is what I said. My hon. Friend needs to apply himself to the basis on which the House voted, after intense debate and a period of consideration going back for eight months. Yes, we did speak about the need to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. So did the Security Council. It was not a hole-in-the-corner thing, as is sometimes implied, all depending on whether it took 45 minutes or 90 minutes for those weapons to be prepared. It was on the basis of the clearest possible evidence of two key sets of facts: in the words of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fact that it had had such programmes and was plainly seeking to rebuild them, and above all its defiance of the will of the United Nations. I say to my hon. Friend and the House—and this underlines the nature of the argument back in March—that had Saddam Hussein complied completely, immediately and fully with the terms of 1441, and had the inspectors been able to say that, there would have been no basis for military action. It was Iraq's wilful failure to comply that was at the heart of the decision that the House rightly took on 18 March to take military action.

Gordon Prentice: The Americans have offered $25 million for information leading to the capture of Saddam Hussein, and since then there has been the tape allegedly portraying the dictator. Is there any evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein is still alive and in Iraq?

Jack Straw: There is neither proof of life, nor proof of death.

Point of Order

John Burnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. On today's Order Paper, in the written ministerial statements there is listed at item 12 an apparently innocuous item entitled, "Publication of the Butterfield Review". Far from being innocuous, this is an extremely important review of a huge VAT scam. As a result of mismanagement and gross negligence, billions of pounds have been lost to the Exchequer and many prosecutions have failed. So immense were those series of frauds that they distorted the balance of payments figures, jeopardising the macro-economic management of the economy. In those circumstances, will you make it clear to Treasury Ministers that such a major report should have been introduced to the House by an oral statement followed by questions?

Mr. Speaker: These matters are for the judgment of Ministers, and the Minister concerned has obviously used his judgment.

National Minimum Wage (Tips)

Michael Connarty: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Regulation 31 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 so that amounts paid by customers by way of service charge, tip, gratuity or cover charge whether paid to employees through the payroll or by any other method are excluded from payments taken into account as remunerations contributing to the National Minimum Wage.
	I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for his invitation to have a meeting on this issue, and his predecessor, now the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, for continuing to encourage me to explore the problems that exist with regard to the national minimum wage and tips.
	The question is: when a customer gives a tip, who is it for? Customers, and I think all hon. Members, believe that a tip is for the individual waiter or hotel staff member whom they give it to or leave it for or that it will be shared through a pooled tip system—we would call such a pool a kitty in Scotland, but it is officially called a tronc—to be shared among the staff. Customers believe that in the UK, where we have a national minimum wage by law—I think that, at £4.10, it is still too low, but it will be increased to £4.50 in October—the tip will make a small addition to that sum. It will not do so if it is paid on a credit card, in a cheque, through a pooled system or tronc and through the payroll. Even if a customer gives cash, if the hotel or restaurant runs a tronc or pooled tip system divided up by a tronc master, who tends to be the head waiter—I was told this morning about a headwaiter who took 80 per cent. of all the tips before distributing the rest—it may still be used to pay towards the minimum wage.
	I often hear people say "It wasn't meant to be like this"—I use the phrase myself sometimes when I look at Government policy—but it was. In the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, regulation 31(1)(e) states that
	"service charge, tips, gratuities or cover charge that is not paid through the payroll",
	are excluded from payments towards the minimum wage, but that means that other tips are counted towards it. The consequences for 1.8 million people working in the service industry, 67 per cent of whom are women and 40 per cent. of whom are under 25, are significant: some 1.8 million people may not be getting what they think they should get.
	The problem was highlighted in the case of Nerva and others v. RL&G Ltd., which involved two London restaurants—Paradiso e Inferno in the Strand and Trota Blu in Leicester square. The case was brought in 1995, before the national minimum wage was introduced, but was concluded only last year at the European Court of Human Rights. The High Court ruling said that
	"ownership of tips through cheque and credit card first passes to the employer",
	as such payments will be made in the name of the establishment. That was incorporated into the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the 1999 regulations. The case of Nerva and others v. the UK was lost in 2002 at the European Court of Human Rights because we had written that injustice into the law of this land. That is why it was thrown out.
	An excellent article by Philip Inman in The Guardian on Saturday 24 November 2001 revealed that even cash tips are not going to staff. It said that, if the establishment in question operated a tronc or pooled tip system paid through the payroll, it did not go to the staff on top of their minimum wage. The article cited the example of the Sanderson, a well-known London hotel where rooms cost from £240 to £2,000 a night for the main suite. That hotel paid £2.50 an hour and topped up the amount to the minimum wage from tips through the payroll. Popular restaurant chains such as Caffe Uno and Garfunkels operate the same tronc system.
	This Bill would ensure that all additional payments made by customers as tips, gratuities, service or cover charges have to be paid in addition to the minimum wage by excluding tips paid by any method from minimum wage calculations. It would also reduce the complexity of enforcement, because, as I told the former Minister, enforcement officers would not have to find out whether tips are paid towards the minimum wage. Everyone working in an establishment would receive the minimum wage. Tips above that would be a matter for them, the tax office and their employer.
	The Bill would deliver the guaranteed national minimum wage for the 1.8 million people who are probably the most vulnerable workers in this nation, as was the Labour's Government's intention when they said that they would introduce the original Bill. It would ensure that, when tips are paid and by whatever method, they are for the staff as a little extra for themselves and not their employer.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Connarty, Jim Dobbin, John Robertson, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Vera Baird, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. Bill Tynan, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Bob Blizzard and Angela Eagle.

National Minimum Wage (Tips)

Mr. Michael Connarty accordingly presented a Bill to amend Regulation 31 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 so that amounts paid by customers by way of service charge, tip, gratuity or cover charge whether paid to employees through the payroll or by any other method are excluded from payments taken into account as remunerations contributing to the National Minimum Wage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 150].

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the list of written ministerial statements to be made today, No. 29 will be in the name of the Home Secretary, which is why I refer to it now, while he is in his place. Its title is "Independent Review of the National Asylum Support Service". My understanding is that the independent review has not been published and that only a summary has been issued. My further understanding is that that is so because it is a critical report. May I ask you to reflect on whether it is appropriate that independent review reports are published only in summary form without hon. Members being able to see the full report, which is what was expected and what was implied in the statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place when Mr. Speaker dealt with a similar point of order raised by one of his hon. Friends. What Mr. Speaker said I shall say again: this is entirely a matter for the Government, but the hon. Gentleman's concern can be pursued subsequently through question and debate. Orders of the Day

Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]

[Relevant documents: Seventh and Twelfth Reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2002–03, on its continuing scrutiny of Bills, HC 547 and HC 765; and Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on the Sexual Offences Bill, HC 639.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I thank not only my noble Friends in the Lords, but all those of all parties and none who contributed to the debate and the improvement of the Bill as it made its way through the upper Chamber. The Bill has been a long time in the making. Both actions against sex offenders and the law on sex offences are outdated and arcane, and are sometimes subject, I regret to say, to a great deal of silliness. That is why Governments of all persuasions have for so long been reluctant to act on some of these measures.
	Consultation on the paper "Setting the Boundaries" and the preparation for the Bill lasted two and a half years. The process was worth it in the sense that getting the balance right has been critical to winning over support and finding a consensus. I hope that this House will continue to address the issues rationally and with a view to finding an agreed solution to some of the more difficult problems. All those who have addressed the matter have found that one solution often leads to another difficulty. I therefore hope that we can continue that consensus this afternoon and in Committee. I offer to the Opposition parties the opportunity to continue in Committee that process of dialogue and improvement.
	I want to thank once again the members of the taskforce on child protection on the internet for their work. Important work remains to be done on getting the sentencing policy right.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. He is aware of the case of my constituent Shevaun Pennington, who went missing on Saturday and is believed to have travelled to France with a US citizen. That worrying case emphasises why the measures in clause 17 are so necessary, but her safe and immediate return to this country is of course our immediate concern. Would the Home Secretary today contact his French counterparts, not only to thank them for their help to date, but to ask them to do everything else within their power to facilitate that, including providing all necessary information to the Greater Manchester police to help them with their inquiries, publicising media photographs and ensuring that immigration staff at entry and exit points have all the necessary information? Would he further ask his officials to work with Interpol to ensure that information is spread as far and wide as possible to the authorities of neighbouring countries?

David Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue; I will deal with it now. Clause 17 and clauses 121 to 127 strengthen the law substantially in that respect.
	On behalf of the House, I send our deepest sympathy to the family of Shevaun. It must be a very trying time for them. No parent who knows and understands that their child will enter and use the internet does not sympathise with them greatly as regards what has happened and the way in which it happened. My office has been in touch with the office of Nicolas Sarkozy, the Minister for the Interior in France, and we have secured agreement from him that the French will take every possible step to assist in apprehending the couples who flew into Paris on Saturday evening. They will engage with our forces—two members of the Greater Manchester police are going out to Paris to assist with the investigation—and work with us through Europol and Interpol to ensure that we follow every possible lead.
	On 5 May, in Paris, we had a home affairs meeting of the G8 countries that was led by the French. They were concerned that we should discuss the whole issue of child pornography, grooming on the internet and the use of the internet for such crime. It was agreed then, two months ago, that we should step up joint international action. This case provides an opportunity for people to put into practice their words and intentions. The Foreign Secretary and I want to use every avenue that is available to us in relation to the incident, which reinforces why the measures in clause 17 and the clauses in part 2 relating to enforcement are long overdue and matter so greatly. Apart from fitting into the broader context of strengthening the law and sentencing, they underline the importance of working with the industry on the protections that the taskforce considered and of working together to protect young people from gross abuse.
	The signals that we send in today's debate and in Committee will make a difference in terms of the messages that young people receive, the measured way in which we deal with the wider issues of offending and offences, and the engagement of broader civil society in being part of the solution. It is important to take cognisance of the great difficulty of balancing protection against a free and open society. As with so many of the issues that Home Secretaries—as opposed to Guardian columnists—have to deal with, such balances must be kept in view all the time.

David Hinchliffe: I place on record my appreciation of the work that my right hon. Friend has done in introducing this very important Bill, which is indeed long overdue.
	The Family Planning Association and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have expressed concern that the Bill could criminalise young people of 14 or 15 for consensual petting or kissing. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could clarify that, bearing in mind that the average age of first intercourse is now 16. Has he considered the possible implications?

David Blunkett: Yes, I have. As recently as yesterday I thought about whether there was a formulation that would change the existing law in a way that addressed the practical issues. As the House of Lords found, and as the Committee in this House will find, it is extremely difficult to come up with a formulation that not only protects young people from those over the age of 16 or 18 engaging in activity preparatory to sexual behaviour that would put them at risk and is considered in the Bill to be unacceptable, and therefore outside the law, but from those under 16—we have all had experience of this in terms of school exclusions—who have taken equally unacceptable actions against those of a similar age. Drawing the line between penetration—we are going to be dealing with these issues, I am afraid—and actions leading to penetration by those intent on doing so without consent has made it impossible to find another definition, given the well-known difficulty of ascertaining consent in relation to youngsters.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), will meet the head of the Family Planning Association tomorrow. I repeat what I said to several groups who raised civil liberties issues in relation to the recommendations of the taskforce. If the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has been speaking are of good will—as he certainly is—and believe that we have got it wrong, I ask only one thing of them: that they produce a formulation that overcomes the objections that have been raised. It is extremely difficult. I do not want the law to be an ass. No one will be prosecuted in the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend—they never have been, and they will not be—but to find a way out of a situation that relies on the common sense of the Crown Prosecution Service has proved impossible.
	It would be appropriate for me to take offenders first, so I shall deal with part 2, which starts with clauses 81 to 93. That part of the Bill concerns the registration of offenders and updates the existing law, including the Sex Offenders Act 1997. It is about informing the police of changes of circumstance; visits that are to be made by those who are placed on the register; the confirmation every year of the details and whereabouts of those individuals, instead of the present situation; the power regularly to take biometric information, such as fingerprints and photographs; new laws concerning overseas visits and the requirements of notification orders; and, as is described in clauses 95 to 101, getting a grip of those who go overseas to procure the services of young children and monitoring them to prevent them from doing so.
	Clauses 102 to 111 bring together sex offenders orders and restraining orders into the new prevention orders, which aim to prevent offenders from going near, or being around, areas such as playgrounds or schools or visiting particular localities. They also deal with the breach of orders and an extension to violent offenders who previously were not dealt with under the relevant provisions. We are also increasing the sentence for such breaches to five years. I am sure that that will send a much better signal.
	Clauses 112 to 120 again deal with foreign travel and the need to bring our laws into line. When I responded to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), I mentioned the way in which clause 17 interchanges with clauses 121 to 127, and risk assessment. The taskforce did an excellent job of considering the matter and dealing with chat rooms. That was one of the most difficult issues because it involves the modern phenomenon of using the internet and access to the internet in a way that it is hard for parents to monitor. We need to ensure that servers provide some protection, but how can that be done in a free and open society? The difficulties are illustrated by the tragedy that has befallen Shevaun, who was taken away by someone who pretended to be a similar age.
	However, we are tightening the law to deal with people who endeavour to meet a child following sexual grooming and we therefore need a new offence. We are introducing such an offence today and providing for a penalty when such meetings are intended to lead to a sexual offence against the child at that or a subsequent meeting, and the perpetrator has communicated with the child at least twice to start the grooming process. The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years, but it needs to be linked with the other offences in the Bill that carry much more substantial sentences, including anything that may have happened as a result of the grooming.

Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats support the Government's proposals on grooming and dealing with sex offenders and their registration and monitoring. Like the Government, we stop short of supporting the full implications of a "Sarah's law" approach. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that, when British people or those resident in Britain commit sex offences abroad, information about the conviction will be adequately transferred to the authorities on all occasions so that we are protected against those who have offended abroad but return to this country and are obviously at risk of offending here?

David Blunkett: I shall answer the question carefully because my immediate instinct is to say yes, but much depends on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place and its ability to deal with such matters through its criminal justice system. Whenever such actions are identified, I expect the relevant countries to be required to ensure that they inform us properly, just as we would want to do the same when offenders commit crimes in this country. I am happy to explore in Committee whether we might take further measures to ensure that the process is watertight.

Dominic Grieve: I, too, welcome the provisions on sexual grooming. As the Home Secretary knows, the Conservative party said some time ago that the matter required attention. Is he satisfied that there is enough flexibility in the proposed maximum sentence to deal with cases in which nothing else happens, but the evidence is clear and unequivocal about the intent of a person, who may have previous convictions for serious sex offences against children?

David Blunkett: Yes. Earlier, I said that we must be able to judge the sentencing provisions that are available to the judiciary in the light of the variation in offences. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have done that with respect to variation in age of the offender. The Bill now provides for that, as does the Criminal Justice Bill. My hon. Friend Baroness Scotland will raise the matter in the House of Lords when it considers the Criminal Justice Bill. She is prepared to listen to the comments of hon. Members here and in another place about other forms of offence and the shadow Home Secretary's request for a sliding scale for youngsters. However, I am satisfied that we can get tough enough with individuals to the extent of imposing life sentences for some actions.

Stephen Hesford: I understood the point of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to be that grooming offences do not carry the same maximum penalty, even against children under 13. A person could therefore get a life sentence for committing an offence against a child under 13, but not for grooming such a child. That is an important matter.

David Blunkett: A person cannot get a life sentence for grooming but the actions that arise out of grooming can mean such a sentence. We are criminalising grooming; we are making it an offence with a penalty of five years. For the first time, other actions against children under 13 that arise out of grooming mean a life sentence and 14 years when committed against those who are older than 13. We are trying to make sense of things so that, for the first time, there is an offence that leads to another offence, should that tragically happen.

Paul Beresford: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge now—it was acknowledged in the previous Session—that the Bill is proactive not reactive? The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) was therefore right. We should strike hard proactively rather than reactively to save a child.

David Blunkett: First, I thank the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for the enormous amount of work that he has undertaken as a member of the taskforce and beyond that. We must send the right signals, but hon. Members often draw attention, sometimes when criticising my actions, to the need for penalties to be incremental and to deal with the offence. Our criminal justice system must deal with the offence that has been committed. I should be happy to listen to further thoughts from the hon. Gentleman on the way to get the matter right and on whether I misinterpreted him.
	Before I deal in detail with the substance of part 1, I want to lighten the mood by showing the reasons for the reluctance of Governments of all persuasions to deal with such issues and the difficulty of tackling them in practice. I draw on the debate in the House of Lords for examples.

Simon Hughes: It is hilarious.

David Blunkett: I need to lighten my mood because going through some of the cases is harrowing.
	Some of the comments that were made could have come from "Round the Horne" and "Beyond Our Ken". Let us take Lady Saltoun—or Opposition Members can take her. Between her more offensive comments, she came out with some gems. Her statements are almost priceless. She suggested that oral penetration could be considered less serious on the ground that it could be prevented because:
	"Clenched teeth can provide quite a good defence. Indeed, not only can they provide a good line of defence, they can be an aggressive form of defence because teeth can also bite."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1054.]
	How could one disagree with such a gem? Lady Noakes also came out with a real classic when she described as a "probing amendment" a proposal to
	"leave out 'genitals' and insert 'penis'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 555.]
	The good news is that she withdrew it. I hope that the Committee will restrain itself when it reaches these parts of the Bill, but these examples demonstrate the pitfalls that we can all encounter. These are deeply difficult areas, and it is a tribute to the way in which the Bill has been handled that we have got this far. I hope that the Committee will be able to continue that process.

David Cameron: On the lighter points of the Bill, the Home Secretary might not have read all the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee, on which I serve. One of the highlights was when the head of the naturists pointed out that all naturists had to carry a naturist passport, which led many members of the Committee to wonder where they would keep it.

David Blunkett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall move quickly on from contemplating that thought—sufficient unto the day.

Humfrey Malins: Where would they keep their identity cards?

David Blunkett: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) makes me smile by asking that question. Perhaps the biometric data could be placed on the person.
	Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 provide for clarity and greater strength in dealing with the law on consent. The definition of consent has been a difficult and problematic issue. In the House of Lords, we managed, through agreement and compromise, to ensure that consent had to be freely given, and that the test of reasonableness was accepted in terms of the genuine belief that consent existed. I am glad that we reached such a compromise because it was important that we were able to move forward in that way. In the Lords, we discussed the question of a list of offences involving a presumption, and we shall return to that in Committee. This involves circumstances in which the lack of consent is self-evident, including those in which someone was asleep or had been drugged or rendered unconscious. Clearly, it would be self-evident that they could not have given their consent in such circumstances. We will be happy to hear from Members on both sides of the House regarding how we can build on the progress that has been made and move forward in those areas. Honest and reasonable belief in relation to consent seems to be a sensible agreed solution.
	Clause 2 deals with the difficult issue of anonymity, and a new clause relating to the definition of this was narrowly carried in the House of Lords. As drafted, it applies only post-charge, but as we all know, the difficult with anonymity often arises when there is speculation about what has happened and about the nature of an individual's activities, long before charges are brought. I have said before that we are not convinced that we can separate anonymity in such circumstances from anonymity in relation to other very serious offences, but we remain willing to listen to the views put forward in Committee. It is our intention at the moment to ask the Committee to reverse that amendment.

Howard Stoate: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on this rather difficult issue, and I hope that the Committee will have time to consider it in more detail. Clearly there is a problem when, for example, a professional person such as a doctor has been accused of inappropriate behaviour and the matter goes to court. Once that person has been charged, his name will be besmirched by all sorts of newspapers—scurrilous and otherwise—which will do irreparable damage to his reputation, even if he is subsequently found innocent. Will my right hon. Friend consider those difficult situations in which a professional person who is accused of something that he is subsequently found not to have done, nevertheless has significant damage done to his reputation by the reporting of the case in the newspapers?

David Blunkett: This is precisely the area in which we have to be very cautious. We are talking to the Association of Chief Police Officers and to the newspaper industry about strengthening the existing guidelines to protect individuals. We would need anonymity not only all the way through the criminal process but all the way through the professional process. In the instance that my hon. Friend has given, that would obviously involve hearings before the General Medical Council, because there would be professional concerns involved, and a judgment would have to made in relation to the knowledge of patients in those circumstances.

Dominic Grieve: I recognise that this is an area of considerable difficulty for the Home Secretary. I note that he highlighted the differences between anonymity pre-charge and during the trial process. I also noted his view that there might be an argument for tightening up the rules on pre-charge publicity and anonymity. One problem is that, all too often, there is evidence that the police collude with the media to reveal information on those who are under investigation, when there is no justification whatever for them to do so.

David Blunkett: I am not going to enter into the vigorous debate that took place in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport a couple of months ago. Historically, however, people have believed that information has rapidly been passed to newspapers by those who should know better. There is no point in trying to duck that issue. In consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, representatives of the newspaper industry and others, we need to examine how we can get some sense in this context, because it is an affront to the rights of an individual if they are named and their reputation is sullied in circumstances in which there is no evidence against them.

Vera Baird: Is not the anonymity issue one for the criminal justice system as a whole, across many offences? I doubt that it would be worse for someone to be named in connection with an allegation of a sexual offence than with an allegation that they had robbed an old lady of 80 and seriously injured her, or an allegation that they were a murderer. I doubt that there is any gravity that requires special protection in relation to sexual offences.
	Before my right hon. Friend rises to respond, may I make one more point? Clause 2, as drafted, states:
	"The defendant in rape etc. cases shall enjoy the same right to anonymity as is enjoyed by the complainant."
	As I recall, the right to anonymity of a complainant is lifelong. This provision would therefore mean that a defendant would be entitled to anonymity even after conviction.

David Blunkett: My hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to the flawed drafting of the clause, which needs to be considered very carefully. I agree with her first point, which is that a whole range of offences that do not have anonymity attached to them cause grave concern to individuals, not just those with public standing or a professional reputation, but people in general who find themselves in such circumstances. That is why there is a need for a great deal more care to be taken when reporting takes place in this context, as well as a need to address this specific issue.
	Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal with the age below which there should be no question of a child being presumed to have consented to sex. This measure is long overdue, and I am glad that we have been able to reach agreement on it. It will ensure that those aged 12 and under cannot give and should not ever be presumed to give consent. I am pleased that we have been able to make common sense out of this.
	Clauses 10 to 16 cover both direct physical activity and the kind of action that was highlighted last year that leads youngsters to be brought into a situation in which, although they are not being physically abused, they are being encouraged to take off their clothes and engage in other activities that are totally unacceptable. We obviously have to ensure that youngsters are protected from such activities, and I am glad that we have reached agreement there. As mentioned a few moments ago, differential penalties also apply in these clauses in respect of different ages.

Vera Baird: Am I right in understanding that, for an offence under clause 10, which outlaws sexual activity with someone under 16, no defence of consent applies? If, however, someone under 16 is raped under clause 1, does the defence of consent still apply? I assume that it does, so I do not follow the line of logic that separates the two.

David Blunkett: I will happily come back to my hon. and learned Friend if I inadvertently misled her or the House, but it is not our intention that that should be the case, and if the drafting is inadequate, we will certainly put it right in Committee.
	Clause 17 was referred to earlier, together with clauses 121 and 127, in the context of grooming. Clauses 18 to 26 are about the re-enactment and extension of the law covering 16 and 17-year-olds. In other words, 16 and 17-year-olds are brought under the provisions on trust, where professionals hold positions of trust in a range of circumstances and we need to ensure that young people are protected. Children's guardians and those responsible for discharging care or supervision orders would fall under those provisions.
	Clauses 27 to 31 deal with abuse within the family, replacing the current law on incest with children. Again, the issue is about dealing with those who have and gain the trust of young people, and relevant provisions are extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
	Clauses 32 to 46 deal with the difficult area of offences against adults with learning disabilities or with mental health disorders. That is an area of substantial abuse and it again includes people in a position of authority. It is estimated that those with learning disabilities are three times as likely to have been abused than other members of the population. We face grave difficulties in securing credible evidence from the individuals affected. Many people within and outside the House are deeply concerned, and we are very happy to be able to move forward on that front.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with everything that the Home Secretary has just said. It was brought to my attention—and probably to his, and it may need to be dealt with carefully in Committee—by care workers who deal with learning disabilities, that certain areas of sex education pose peculiar problems for them. They are afraid of being exposed to prosecution on account of the way in which they deliver such education. I hope that the Home Secretary will be open-minded about that when we come to deal with this extremely difficult area in Committee.

David Blunkett: Yes. In fact, clauses 47 and 48 deal with some of the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in replicating photographs. That fits into a similar category, where we do not wish to prevent professionals from doing their job of providing advice, support and help. The police obviously need to use certain material in order to obtain a conviction. On either front, I am happy for us to debate how best to ensure that people can get on with their jobs free from the fear of unwarranted prosecution—or even allegations, which would probably be more relevant, because the Crown Prosecution Service, as we mentioned at the start of the debate, is likely to use common sense in these matters.

Evan Harris: I would like to probe the Home Secretary further on the question of the marriage exemption, particularly in respect of the abuse of trust. An exemption for marriage exists for relationships between people who are 16 and 17 and older people. Being married obviously provides a defence. However, does that not create a difficulty in being discriminatory, since marriage is available as a defence only in heterosexual relationships? Parental consent is required in that case, so is there not an argument for exploring whether obtaining parental consent for relationships in those narrowly defined areas could be a way of ensuring that homosexual relationships of the same depth and strength as married heterosexual relationships are available to provide the same protection? I realise that it is a difficult area, but I would be grateful if the Home Secretary would at least allow that issue to be explored.

David Blunkett: It is probably the first time in six years of being in the Government that I have said it, but I do wish the hon. Gentleman had given me notice of that question. The sensible thing would be for me to write to him. I would also be happy for the hon. Gentleman to meet the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) to discuss the matter. I have not dealt with it so far in my discussions on the Bill over recent months, but I shall certainly take what the hon. Gentleman said seriously.
	Clauses 49 to 61 deal with commercial exploitation for sexual purposes. The provisions are long overdue and in common with subsequent clauses complement our work on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which dealt with trafficking across the world. The clauses deal with the difficult issues surrounding prostitution. I spoke, together with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has responsibility for drugs and organised crime, at a recent conference in Leeds, at which parents of children who had been inveigled into prostitution appealed to us to move rapidly and extensively to prevent that massive exploitation. The difficulties of prosecution have been made worse by the need to protect children and the fact that the provision will now include 16 and 17-year-olds. It was rightly pointed out that some youngsters drawn into this activity at 14 and 15 had somehow been left to their own devices at 16 and 17, which is a travesty. We should extend the law, whether on pornography or prostitution, to make it easier to take decisive action to protect people against exploitation for commercial gain.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I commend him for introducing this important legislation. Can he confirm that we have now reached the moment when it is possible to say that children who have been involved in prostitution or pornography are removed from any criminal liability whatever?

David Blunkett: Children are, and the intent behind the clauses is to get round the difficulty that in the past it had to be proved that the person exploiting the child did so for material gain. That was much more difficult to prove than the suspicion itself. We are now removing that difficulty and we are also for the first time criminalising the payer for sex with a child. Amazingly, that was not in itself a criminal offence. As I made clear earlier, the penalty where children under 13 are concerned will be life, and it will be 14 years for similar offences with older children. That sends out a clear signal.

George Osborne: The clauses on trafficking are welcome, but they are the only clauses in the Bill where no distinction is made in recognition of the fact that the victim could be a child. UNICEF raised the issue with me and, no doubt, other hon. Members. What is the Home Secretary's logic for failing to make a distinction for where the victim is a child? Surely the seriousness of cases involving children should be reflected in the Bill.

David Blunkett: As I argued earlier, it is possible for someone to be charged with more than one offence. The penalties levied would be commensurate with the combined offence. I am sure that my hon. Friends would be happy to consider in Committee whether, when trafficking offences that apply to adults as well as children are combined with offences involving children—to which certain penalties would apply independently—the penalties are sufficient to reflect the heinousness of the offence of trafficking in young people. In other words, if we determine that combining the offences is not enough, we need to decide whether the aggravation of the offence should carry additional penalties. My ministerial colleagues will take a look at that matter in Standing Committee.
	In fact, the Standing Committee process will ensure that an improved Bill comes back to the House. The Government will listen and respond, as we do not pretend to have the handle on everything or to be the fount of all wisdom. We do on some occasions, but not on this matter. For the information of the House, and of Hansard, that last remark was an example of irony.
	Clauses 62 to 64 deal with drug rape. I think that the House agrees on this matter. The Bill raises the penalty to 10 years. It is an outrage that people should be abused in that way.
	Clauses 65 and 66 are about adult incest, which is another very difficult area.
	Clauses 67 to 72 are about sex in public. Now, I want to make it clear that the coverage that has been given to this issue would be impossible to make up. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, now the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), gave a perfectly reasonable explanation at a press briefing of what was intended. An interesting debate was initiated, which led people to believe that the Bill would reduce rather than strengthen the law in relation to matters such as sex in toilets.
	I want to make it absolutely clear that sex in toilets is illegal. It will remain so. The offence will be enforceable under existing public order legislation, but there will be additional protection as well. Given the confusion, I do not intend to remove the amendment passed in the House of Lords. Instead, I shall seek to ensure that it is operable and that it makes sense. I invite Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members to ensure that we get the matter right, as no one wants any form of sex to be taking place around them in a toilet, whether in or out of a cubicle. That goes for petting as much as for more unacceptable forms of behaviour. I doubt whether any hon. Member would disagree with that.

Dominic Grieve: What the Home Secretary has just said is extremely welcome. There are a number of ways in which to tackle the problem. The right hon. Gentleman has plainly taken on board the concerns expressed in another place and I am sure that we can arrive at a satisfactory formula on which we can all agree.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That indicates that common sense will be applied in common cause.

Simon Hughes: I have spoken to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about this matter. Like Conservative Members, the Liberal Democrats are very keen to sort this matter out once and for all. The wording of clause 67 is not right yet, so will the Home Secretary look at the proposal from the Home Affairs Committee that the public order legislation should be amended and clarified? I am very tempted by the idea of making the activity a public order offence. I share the Home Secretary's objective absolutely, but there may be a way to achieve it by means of the Criminal Justice Bill rather than this Bill.

David Blunkett: The point about the interplay between the Criminal Justice Bill and this Bill is important. I have spoken in strong terms about the potential for incorporating the common law in statute law. I am very happy to continue to explore that. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has spent more hours than he cares to reveal looking for a way forward on this matter to which hon. Members of all parties can agree. We all want a lasting rather than a temporary solution.
	The Bill contains a number of clauses dealing with bestiality. I do not intend to go into them this afternoon. The House of Lords did so at considerable depth, so I shall spare hon. Members details of the activities involved.
	Before concluding, I want to say that the spirit in which the proposals have been received shows that every hon. Member wants there to be lasting legislation in this area. Over the past century, securing change in respect of some matters has taken a long time. We want the legislation to last, but we also know that the law is not sufficient. Changing the law is important, as are the penalties set down and the signals given out, but we must also change the way people live their lives. We are dealing with matters such as how young people are brought up, how they are educated in schools, and how they come to understand what is acceptable and what is not.
	It is also a matter of trying to spot mental health problems at an early age. Some of the activities covered by the Bill can only be carried out by people who are severely mentally ill. They need help at an early stage in their lives, and I hope that we will be able to set the law and carry out those other functions.

Evan Harris: During debates on the Bill that became the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, I raised the question of offences that had been decriminalised but in respect of which people were still subject to sex offenders registration and orders. My proposal was rejected at the time by Ministers, but Lord Falconer said in the House of Lords that he was confident that the Government might be able to table an amendment during the Commons stages of this Bill to ensure that work could be done to identify people subject to the sex offenders regime in respect of acts that had effectively been decriminalised by the 2000 Act. Those acts included gross indecency offences and age-of-consent offences. Will the Home Secretary give the House an update on his thinking on whether such an amendment will be forthcoming as this Bill goes through the House?

David Blunkett: We are minded to introduce such an amendment, as long as we can find a way around the difficulties associated with consensual sex in terms of the position in which people find themselves historically. That is the really difficult challenge, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his work on this matter. We have to trawl back and ensure that an act was consensual. We have given an undertaking to those who have approached us that we will try and find a way forward on this matter. The change in the law means that it would be quite wrong for people to be registered as guilty for an act that is no longer a crime.
	The cross-party and no-party task force to which I referred earlier has been very helpful. We intend to set up a new, cross-Government ministerial committee to monitor the implementation of the legislation and associated measures. It will also look at prevention, early intervention and support, so that we can get the matter right across the piece. That would apply to issues to do with rape, for instance. We intend to set up a rape helpline as quickly as possible, as we promised in an earlier debate.
	Given the discussion this afternoon, and the content of the Bill, I hope that we can all go forward—

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: My goodness! I will give way, but only because my hon. Friend has a privileged position on the all-party committee.

Hilton Dawson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I welcome the new ministerial group on sexual offending. Will he confirm that it will look at the treatment of sex offenders? Well-developed models now exist for addressing the dangerous and abusive offending behaviour of adults. If we provide the means for people to be treated, we can protect children.

David Blunkett: Yes, it is precisely because we need to take non-legislative measures for prevention and early intervention that the group will be looking at the matters that my hon. Friend has set out. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will join me in appealing to the press to understand that it is better, and safer for the public, to treat someone than to leave that person untreated and unsupported on a register. Such a person is in danger of committing sexual offences again. Treatment has to be the right approach, although it is always difficult to find locations that will not offend local residents, or make them feel threatened. We all understand that because we are all constituency MPs, which is a great strength of this House.
	Before anyone else intervenes, I commend the Bill to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome the way in which the Home Secretary opened the debate and presented this matter to the House. I disagreed with his position only when he provided his own analysis of the pitfalls that may have beset those in another place, including my hon. Friends and the Baroness Noakes, in particular, when they presented the various matters to the Lords. There may be a tendency to squeamishness in this place. No one is more capable of robust humour than my noble Friend. In those circumstances, to think of her comments as an unintended pitfall may do her less than justice. As I found in my days as a law student, one need only go to the law reports to the case of R. v. Collins, which fell open at the page describing what constituted an effective and substantial entry for the purposes of committing burglary with intent to rape because of the number of times that it had been read, and which caused general hilarity because the facts of the case were so bizarre. On what is a sombre matter, the Home Secretary should forgive my noble Friend for introducing a note of hilarity to the proceedings, which we sometimes badly need.
	One of the key features of the Bill is the extent to which it has been improved in the other place. When it was first published, the key definitions in clauses 1, 76 and 77 of what constitutes rape and how it should be proved gave me serious cause for concern. I feared that there would be a substantial issue of principle between both sides of the House and perhaps between individuals as the Bill proceeded. I feared that changing the presumptions and changing the test for consent from an objective to a subjective test would cause us real problems. I am happy to be able to say that those problems have evaporated. The way the Lords approached the matter and applied their expertise to a particularly difficult problem, as well as the fact that we have maintained the presumptions but made them evidential and not probative, have made a substantial difference to preserving proper civil rights and fairness in trials while bringing about changes that were long overdue.
	I have never understood the subjective test in rape. Indeed, I suspect that few jurors understood it either. I do not know whether the changes will make a significant difference, but I am content that they will provide an objective test of whether consent has been provided.

David Cameron: Does my hon. Friend have any concerns about the fact that while the other place has done a great tidying-up job, in particular with clauses 75 and 76 on consent, those provisions are still complex and will still require the judge to lead the jury through complicated legal hoops when what really should be at issue is putting the facts before the open court?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of judges have told me that they remain concerned about how they will sum up a case properly to the jury on the new tests. The old tests had the merit of considerable simplicity. That said, that task is not necessarily impossible. My field of practice, which was far removed from this area of the law, although I did deal with it, was health and safety at work, where there are precise reversals of the burden of proof in certain areas. I have not normally seen it as a great difficulty for the judge to explain that to members of the jury in a way that is fair to the defendant and enables the jury to understand. I certainly undertake that we will not allow this key matter to pass through the Committee without further consideration.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman referred to clause 76, which seems to have been simplified considerably in the other place. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the reverse presumptions coming into play if a person had been drugged. The only situation that is almost akin to that in clause 76 is that those presumptions come into play when a complainant is asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the sex act. Some rape drugs do not make a person unconscious; they paralyse or stupefy them. Given that the offence of administering such a rape drug is included in the Bill in clause 62, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea to say that the presumptions in clause 76 should apply where such a drug has been administered?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady makes an important point. The short answer is that that is precisely the sort of matter we must consider in some detail in Committee. It would be foolish of me to attempt to go into such detail in a Second Reading debate. I accept that there are areas in which the legislation could be improved. We should not say that we are satisfied until the Bill has cleared all its stages in this House. I will be happy to look into that aspect of it.
	I do not wish to survey the Bill in its entirety as the Home Secretary did—it is not necessary and would take up too much time—but I shall highlight one or two areas that still need some attention. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned naturists and their concerns about the exposure offences and the offence of voyeurism in clause 69. Although the other place seems to have dealt satisfactorily with exposure, naturists' concerns about what might constitute voyeurism, which might interfere with their legitimate activities, bears some consideration owing to the odd use of the word "structure" in that clause. If naturists decide to go into a garden behind a high wall where they are invisible from any surrounding buildings or any person and someone puts a ladder against the wall and climbs it to photograph them, are the naturists protected by the definition of "structure"? That may be an area in which we can improve the legislation. It seems to me that the term "structure" might protect them only if it refers to a building.
	The Home Secretary mentioned sex in public lavatories and I do not need to say any more about that in view of his helpful comments. However, on the principle behind this, which I think he accepts, the concern expressed in the other place was not homophobic. From experience at the Bar, I know of a number of cases involving heterosexual activities in public lavatories that are as antisocial and unpleasant in every way as any other form of activity. I put that on the record because concern has been expressed that the provision was an expression of a return to homophobic fears; it is not.
	The Home Secretary rightly highlighted recent worrying events in relation to sexual grooming. I join him in expressing sympathy to Shevaun's family and I hope that she may soon be reunited with them. The Home Secretary may have slightly misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. I apologise, as I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I think that a seven-year sentence is provided for in the Bill, not five as the Home Secretary said. Whether it is seven years or five, the point at issue is that, in a sexual grooming case, the person arrested may not have had the opportunity to commit any of the other offences set out in the measure. In those circumstances, if the intervention was rapid enough, people would breath a sigh of relief.
	If there is no more to the matter than that, I accept that the seven-year sentence might be appropriate, but if someone is arrested and the evidence of intent for sexual grooming is overwhelming—for example, if he is found in possession of material that is clearly linked to committing a serious sexual offence and he has a past record of having committed such offences—is there sufficient upward flexibility to allow the judge to protect the public from further offences? That is the point that I was trying to make.

David Blunkett: First, the hon. Gentleman is correct to note that the sentence is seven years. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to my mistake.
	The hon. Gentleman's second point is valid. I had slightly misinterpreted his remarks. If there is a definable further act that would warrant a much more substantial sentence, the Crown Prosecution Service should bring that charge. I take his point, however: we may need a cumulative way of reflecting the severity of what has been done, in the light of previous convictions for similar offences. I think that is the point that he was making and I have a great deal of sympathy with it.

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary. That, too, is a matter that we can look at constructively in Committee to see whether we can provide some improvements.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend might reflect on the recent case of an individual who had no record but arrived at a meeting expecting to buy a 10-year-old girl for sex; he was armed with wire cutters, tape, condoms and all the works. Fortunately, he met a six-foot-something burly Metropolitan policeman, but the crime that he intended to commit could have been taken into account in the sentence.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which we shall have to consider carefully. At the same time, it is also right that we should not sentence to huge terms of imprisonment people with no track record of having committed an offence, even though some evidence of preparatory intent has been found. The dividing line is difficult to draw. Public protection is important, and I am sure that in Committee, with the help of my hon. Friend, we can make some progress on such issues.
	The proposed risk of sexual harm orders are a cause of concern not only to me but to some outside organisations. Although I entirely accept the principle, one must also bear in mind that they could be imposed on people who had never been convicted of any offence whatever, even though that might be unlikely to occur in practice. In those circumstances, the prescribed five-year period seems somewhat draconian. There may be greater scope for flexibility in the other direction while still allowing for a maximum period. We hope to be able to look into that matter, especially as there is also a provision for interim orders, which can be obtained quickly.
	The Home Secretary has an unenviable task: balancing the need to protect the public with the need to protect the liberties of the individual. I certainly do not criticise him for the way in which the Bill has been put together in respect of those matters. I hope, however, that we can provide further scrutiny of that aspect.
	The Home Secretary rightly said that the issue of anonymity goes much further than sexual offences. People's lives can be ruined through having their identity revealed at the time of an investigation, while they can be equally damaged by the trial process. I have noted that commentators have said that there is no equivalence between the alleged victim, who is giving evidence, and the person on trial, but I take a slightly different view.
	In this country, the general principle has been that allegations are made openly and that, as a general rule, people stand by them in the sense that they are willing to accept the publicity attendant on making them. Equally, those against whom the allegations are made must suffer the consequences of the trial process, however unpleasant that may be and however difficult if they are subsequently acquitted. We have rightly provided anonymity for victims; if we had not done so, we should be doing a grave disservice to the interests of justice in such cases. The exception that we made for such victims was correct. However, there is another side of the anonymity coin, which relates to the accused, both in the period before a charge is made and thereafter.
	The Home Secretary made some interesting comments this afternoon. He seemed to indicate that the Government might be minded to look more generally at the issue pre-charge, across the whole spectrum of offences. That might be one approach, but we should not simply allow an issue that was considered soberly and at great length in the other place to disappear. There is overwhelming evidence that individuals tried for alleged sexual offences frequently suffer disproportionate publicity and, if acquitted, there are serious consequences when they try to rebuild their lives.
	For a period of 12 years, we provided for the anonymity of such people. When I was first called to the Bar, that principle still operated and I cannot remember anyone saying that the administration of justice was seriously inconvenienced or handicapped as a result. Mindful as I am of the comments that have been made—that there may be circumstances in which the lack of publicity means that other victims may not come forward—there is an established track record to show that the principle has operated, or appears to have operated, reasonably well in the past. There might be circumstances in which an exception could be made, such as a submission by the prosecutor that the offences were serial and thus that further publicity was required.

Vera Baird: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has noted that if there were to be any such provision, there would have to be exceptions. I was reading an article in a 1986 copy of The Times recently, when there was anonymity for rape defendants. One of the problems in a number of cases then was that if such a defendant absconded before he came to trial, no publicity could be used to try to apprehend him.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that contribution. I hope that she understands that I accepted that there was an issue, although not one that is necessarily insurmountable. A measure of protection might still be provided.
	In relation to the provisions on under-18-year-olds, the Home Secretary pointed out, in some of the final comments in his speech, that some of the problems were related to mental health. The Home Secretary has read the briefing available to other Members and to those who take an interest in the subject. The evidence is pretty overwhelming; in many cases, paedophile behaviour starts in adolescence, in those under the age of 18. If it could be tackled at that age, it could be dealt with successfully, whereas the evidence shows that although it is possible to achieve cures in adulthood, through treatment and rehabilitation, it is much harder.
	I am sympathetic to the principle that has led the Home Secretary to place a lot of emphasis on under-age sexual behaviour, including that which may take place between two people who are both under age or very close in age; but the consequences are bizarre in places.
	Although the Home Secretary is right to highlight the fact that substantial change to the principle of the law has not been proposed, things appear in a pretty stark light when we end up with five-year penalties for those who go behind the bicycle sheds to engage in some French kissing—that is what it really boils down to even with two 15-year-olds. That is a very odd state of affairs.
	Speaking as a Conservative, I have an inherent anxiety about administrative discretion. I accept that administrative discretion may be the only remedy in cases where the CPS will not charge. Nevertheless, when such matters are put on to the statute book in such stark terms, I always fear that, at some point, something will not work properly and that we will end up with prosecutions that cause serious problems. I admit to the Secretary of State that I am not sure that I know the answers, and I suspect that, if he had known the answers, he would have already put them on the statute book.
	It is an odd state of affairs—the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) also highlighted the oddity of the situation in an earlier intervention—that it is possible for someone under the age of 16 to consent to rape, thereby reducing it to the alternative offence, which is a sexual act to which no consent can be given. I think that that is how I read the Bill. So if one has sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old, it may be possible to escape the full penalty of the law, but there is no possibility of that 14-year-old consenting to much lesser behaviour, even though she may consent to the more serious one. That is a curious state of affairs, and all I can say to the Home Secretary is that I shall do my best, as will my hon. Friends, to try to improve on matters, but I am by no means certain that we will be able to do so.

David Blunkett: I make this generous offer: I will buy a flagon of champagne for anyone who comes up with a satisfactory answer. [Hon. Members: "A flagon?"] Not a flagon—

Paul Goggins: A magnum.

David Blunkett: Well, those who come from the north of England need civilising, don't they? We will settle for a magnum of champagne. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: it is an ass, but we have to deal with the ass by providing a carrot, rather than a stick.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the offer. I think that a flagon would have suited me very well, but I fear that I may not obtain it. However, he has certainly fired me into finding out whether I can provide any improvement.
	I wish to deal with the abuse of positions of trust, about which I have to tell the Home Secretary that there is something rather strange. A schoolmaster who has fallen in love with a 17-year-old pupil is constrained from having sexual relations with her. I have no problem with that whatsoever. People who are in positions of trust must not abuse the trust, otherwise the whole system collapses. Parents are entitled to know that their children will not be abused at school. However, I find it strange that the word "regularly" has been introduced, not so much in relation to the abuse, I hasten to tell the Home Secretary, but in relation to the person's status in an educational establishment.
	I find it rather difficult to understand why, if a supply teacher is at a school for only a week, the responsibilities and duties that fall upon him should be any different from those for someone who is there permanently; nor do I understand the downside problem, although it might be necessary to tinker slightly with other words in the relevant clause to ensure that, when that person ceases to teach, the constraints placed on him having a sexual relationship with the 17-year-old are rapidly removed. That is something that we can achieve, and I am not very happy with the way things stand at present.
	I mentioned to the Home Secretary the question of those with learning disabilities, and I do not want to go into that further now. We will consider those issues later.
	Finally, I wish to refer to a completely separate matter, which does not appear in the Bill, but to which the Government are giving some thought. There is a great deal of evidence that, as well as photographs being taken of children, paedophile pornography consists of other images that may not be of victims, but which are nevertheless very pernicious in their dissemination. The Bill makes no mention of those images, but I understand from correspondence that I have seen that the Home Secretary is alive to that issue and has indicated that he would be minded to consider that matter, while the Bill is considered in the Commons.

Paul Beresford: Will my hon. Friend also consider including in that list the written word because paedophile pornography in the form of the written word is also circulated among those of that inclination?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend raises another very big issue—which, in turn, raises some very big issues in relation to censorship. What is unusual about paedophile pornography is the clear linkage that appears to have been established between the consumption of the pornography and individuals subsequently committing offences. The stirring of the imagination by either works of literature—if that is the right title—or, for that matter, by images is such that it can lead, on a fairly identifiable path, to the commission of offences against children. That is the point, not the suppression of the ordinary exchange of information. That raises a difficult issue.
	If the Government wish to consider the written word, we will certainly do so as well, but given that the Home Secretary seems to have given an undertaking to consider the visual image—I suspect from everything that I have seen that it appears to be one of the worst forms of such pornography, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) may know much more about such things—we will certainly be sympathetic to that and we will give it close scrutiny in Committee. However, I very much hope that we will have an opportunity to consider it in Committee, rather than at a later stage.

George Osborne: On the point about the written word, may I caution my hon. Friend that it is a quagmire? In previous generations, people have been dragged into debates about works of literature, such as "Lolita", or works that do not quite qualify as literature, such as those by the Marquis de Sade, and Parliament should not be drawn down that avenue again.

Dominic Grieve: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks, and I hope that he noted from my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that I saw the issue as a possible quagmire, which is why the Home Secretary was not preparing to venture into it. I would probably be happy if he were simply to venture into what is already a bit of a quagmire: the visual image, which already goes much further than taking photographs of under-age children. In fact, it involves images of children who do not exist and are simply the concoction of the imagination. If the Home Secretary thinks that that is a real issue because of the information and evidence that he has been given by experts in the field, the House will have to consider it, and we will provide such assistance as we can in doing so.
	I am sure that other parts of the Bill will need to be considered carefully. I have never been involved with a Bill that has attracted more flyers from non-governmental bodies and other organisations on a host of issues, some of which are very interesting, but probably rather peripheral to the matters under consideration, although they may be very worthy. I will certainly try to take up those that appear to be relevant during the consideration of the Bill.
	The Home Secretary is to be commended greatly for taking on a difficult task that has certainly been ducked previously. I very much hope that, given the huge measure of agreement on both sides of the House, we can ensure that the Bill leaves the House in very good order.

Sally Keeble: I am very grateful to have the chance to speak in the debate on this very important Bill, which deals with some very sensitive issues that bridge the generation gap and involve changing attitudes to sex and personal relations, which is perhaps partly why the Bill also runs into some difficulties. The Bill includes some welcome and important safeguards for some of the most vulnerable people and updates legislation to deal with new criminal activities, particularly in relation to internet crime, which will surely become increasingly important in the coming years. Some formidable measures are needed to tackle that.
	I also welcome very much the range of measures to provide further safeguards for children. Jason Swift, who was one of the unfortunate victims of a notorious paedophile ring some years ago, originally came from my constituency. His family have campaigned vigorously over the years for improvements to the protection of children and had some contact with the Home Office in the preparation of some of this legislation. I very much welcome, too, the changes to honest belief as a defence for rape and the need for this belief to be reasonable, for which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has also campaigned strongly, both outside and inside Parliament.
	My comments will be focused, however, on clauses 61 to 63 on trafficking, and on the clauses on child pornography and prostitution. Trafficking issues get less attention in the Bill, but from my experience as a constituency MP, and from looking at some of the international development issues, it is a problem that is considerably more extensive than we often assume. That also means that we must consider more protections for the victims of trafficking, particularly children, and perhaps some tighter legal safeguards to protect children from trafficking than are included in this legislation.
	In my constituency, there has been a trafficking problem in relation to both women and children. At one of my first advice surgeries after I was elected, people came to complain to me about a couple of massage parlours—they put it more bluntly, and said that they were brothels. Among their complaints was that the Thai women working there had been brought over specifically for the purpose of working in the sex trade, and that they were being kept against their will, and so it turned out when the police finally took action and found that the brothels were at the centre of a big international network in trafficking women for the sex trade.
	Since then, I have also had to deal with a number of children who have been brought into the country on a financial basis—whether it is people smuggling or trafficking depends partly on the definition, and is probably debatable. Some of the children have been exceptionally vulnerable, and I have had great fears about the level of protection provided for them and what has subsequently happened to them. One of them was almost certainly trafficked for domestic work, and that is one of the areas in which this legislation needs tightening up. Others have told me some information about how they came here—brought in by agents, with documents shown at passport control, being handed over to other agents and then brought up to Northampton. Because the children are with adults—albeit not their parents—they are not taken into social service care, nor given what I would regard as adequate protection. What will happen to them I do not know, but I would have thought that at the very least they are vulnerable to being used or abused, or if circumstances change, of finding themselves in a worse position.
	To give an idea of the numbers, over the past year I have dealt with about 10 children who fall into this category, from southern and east Africa. South Asia is also a major area of concern in relation to trafficking and child pornography. The legislation will certainly help with some of those areas of concern. When I was in Cambodia earlier this year, I had the opportunity to speak to people who were trying to combat the growth of trafficking in children for prostitution and pornography, especially for internet porn, and some of the information was horrific. Children were being sold—and, sometimes, rescued, returned to their parents and resold by them—for as little as $20 into paedophile rings that included men from Europe and the UK, with the children being used to produce internet porn.
	To make matters worse, efforts to counter the trade were often undermined by official corruption. I want to pay tribute to the heroic work being undertaken in Cambodia by the non-governmental organisations and by our UK ambassador to strengthen the resolve of the Cambodian Government to deal with the problems, as well as to provide practical help and support for the victims. I am sure that this legislation will also be of great support and use to them in their work.
	Researchers into the subject of child trafficking find it very hard to determine precise numbers. Staff at the high commission in Lagos have estimated that they have detected more than 200 cases of possible child trafficking, and there are estimates of up to 10,000 unaccompanied minors in the UK. Home Office research found that in 1998 up to 1,400 women were trafficked for sexual exploitation. Some recent research done by ECPAT—the organisation that campaigns to end child prostitution and trafficking—found that trafficking had moved outside the big cities and the south-east where the authorities are more aware of the problem. My experiences as a constituency MP would certainly support that, and I completely agree with their conclusions about the need for more active support for the victims throughout the country.
	That brings me to my second point, which is about support services for the victims, to support the excellent provisions of this Bill, and to make sure that those are made a reality for some of these very vulnerable children. I am sure that some of my colleagues will want to talk about the need for the safe house in West Sussex. I also feel, however, that there is a real need for protection and support throughout the country. That means ensuring that there is a legal framework for the provision. Many of the children—and, I suspect, the women—who are trafficked do not have proper immigration status here. My experience has been that while existing legislation can be used to provide support, even for those without status, it is incredibly difficult to get local authorities to recognise the needs of these children and their responsibilities for providing for them. There is also the problem that the children are treated as asylum cases, rather than child protection cases, which makes a difference to the way they are treated. They are sometimes joined to the asylum applications of adults, which means that they are not assessed in their own right and on the basis of their own needs.

Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that clear cases exist in which asylum legislation and the threat of removal under that legislation can empower the trafficker and give them a greater hold over the adult or child whom they have trafficked?

Sally Keeble: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I was going to deal with that point later in my remarks.
	The system is perhaps not intended to work in that way, but it often does at the practical level. In preparing for the implementation of this legislation, will Ministers give some very careful consideration to the support for victims? I see that the Home Office, as is mentioned in the background documentation for today's debate, has a working party on unaccompanied children, and perhaps this matter, including trying to capture information and scope the size of the problem, can be dealt with by that group, as the problems of unaccompanied and trafficked children blur at the edges.
	It would also be helpful if clear guidelines were sent to local authorities, so that they knew what to do. At present, the only realistic way to get access to the support that should be provided under the Children Act 1989 is to go to court. However, the victims are the least likely to do that, so in many cases nothing happens.
	I also want to deal with areas in which the Bill's provisions, excellent though they are, could be improved. One is the provision of a statutory reflection period, which is the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). It was also raised in the other place. If we are seriously to deal with trafficking, we need to be able to prosecute the traffickers. That is difficult, not least because of the vulnerability of the victims and their unwillingness immediately to give information. Indeed, there are sometimes difficulties in trying to get information from them, given differences of language and culture.
	In the example of the Thai massage parlours in my constituency, Northamptonshire police did an outstanding job in difficult circumstances, as there were problems with getting evidence once the women had been dispersed, or in some cases deported. These rings are often enormously sophisticated, and the resources that we are able to pit against them are quite small in terms of numbers. Also, I cannot think of how it would be possible to get information from children who are trafficked without providing good time to build their confidence and to win their trust.
	I see that a reflection period forms part of a Home Office pilot project, and verbal assurances have been given on deportations in cases of trafficking. That needs to be clearly set out in the legal framework or there could be inconsistency in practice. That could set back the efforts to deal with this pernicious problem.
	The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) took up the point that there should be differentiation between the trafficking of adults and of children. I have seen the record from the other place, where the argument against that involved the penalty. To pick up the hon. Gentleman's point and considering the other offences dealt with in the Bill, there are differences between offences committed against adults and those against children. There will be an inconsistency if the same distinctions are not drawn in relation to trafficking. I would argue that the age or youth of the person trafficked should be an aggravating factor, and it should influence how the offence is regarded and the offender treated. I hope that the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already given will make it possible to deal with that issue. I urge the Government to draw differences between the trafficking of children and of adults.
	Also, I see that trafficking is confined to that for sexual exploitation. I realise, of course, that the Bill relates to sexual offences, but it appears that some trafficking is for other purposes, in particular domestic work or, to be more honest, slavery. Some trafficking involves financial exploitation in the form of charges and benefits. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider some of those other purposes and whether it might be possible to provide protection for people, especially children, who are the victims of such trafficking?
	Whatever shape the Bill ends up in, it will be a huge improvement on the situation now. It will strengthen the arm of those who seek to end the trafficking and exploitation of some vulnerable people, and it represents a huge step forward in protecting some extremely vulnerable children from sexual crimes that have shocked us all over past decades. I welcome the Bill and commend it to the House.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). I hope she will allow me to call her my hon. Friend, given our previous lives when she was leader of Southwark council. We always co-operated strongly, in spite of our party differences. She is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that we are dealing, for the first time in sexual offences legislation, not only with the domestic position and domestic law, but with the terrible abuse and exploitation that can happen internationally. Those can be dealt with quite effectively by domestic legislation, as long as there is collaboration across boundaries.
	There is a blunt truth: people who 50 years ago would have made their money from armed robbery, 30 years ago would have made their money from pornography in its early days, and 10 or 20 years ago would have made their money from drugs, have decided that there is money to be made from exploiting people. They are completely ruthless and reckless in the harm that they can cause. It is important that we address that issue in this context, and the debate has given us a welcome opportunity to do so.
	The Minister will have the task of steering this somewhat complex legislation through consideration in Committee. Mercifully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said to me, he will do so without some of the heat that, apparently, was generated in the House of Lords over many a long day and night.
	I say to the Minister that we pay tribute to the fact that before the last election, when the present Foreign Secretary was the Home Secretary, the Labour Government grasped a nettle that needed to be grasped by saying that the sexual offences laws of this country needed to be reformed. The laws had been effectively untouched by a full review since the 1950s and some pieces of legislation dated back to earlier than that. A thorough reform was needed, although it was always thought that that would be difficult and controversial.

Vera Baird: Should not the Government also be commended on their earlier step in 1999 to abolish the admissibility of previous sexual history to show consent during rape trials?

Simon Hughes: Yes. The Government faced up to the need to take the files off the shelf in the Home Office and established the "Setting the Boundaries" review in 1999. They appointed good people to the review body, and the report, which formed the basis of the Bill, was completed after substantial work. The wide-ranging report tried to suggest up-to-date law that would be much clearer than before and non-discriminatory. This country had never before recognised that much of the existing law had been based on prejudices and assumptions that dated back to Victorian ages when, for example, the monarch did not believe that women could have same-sex relationships, so such relationships were never referred to. It was decided that the law needed to be brought up to date, and we should all be grateful for that.
	I pay tribute to Members of the House of Lords who laboured long and hard on the Bill, especially our colleagues Lord Thomas of Gresford and Baroness Walmsley. The Home Secretary said that the Bill was a long time in the making—it was certainly a long time in the Lords. After hearing and reading several of the debates, one discovered that people such as Lady Saltoun of Abernethy appeared to have an unusual interest in such legislation—far be it for me to comment on whether she also has unusual expertise. The Bill seemed to preoccupy Members of the House of Lords, but they grasped several difficult nettles and managed to tease out answers that have led to a greater consensus. There is much more consensus on the Bill now than there was when it started its passage. The Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have added sensible recommendations.
	The Bill deals with four types of protection in particular: the protection of children; the protection of vulnerable adults, especially those with mental disorders or learning difficulties; the protection of all individuals who might be the target of unwarranted sexual approaches; and the protection of the public. I hope that we all share the view of the public at large that those who abuse children, young people and the vulnerable are, in colloquial terms, sad and sick individuals whose violence and perversion is revolting to society. We must protect the vulnerable against such people's activities. They are often in need of help and treatment, but none the less their actions must be minimised and people must be protected against them at all costs.
	It has not yet been said that sexual abuse happens most often in the broader family context. It is next most likely to happen among people who know each other. Sexual abuse is least frequent among people who have never previously had contact. Unless we understand that fact, we fail to grasp the difficulty of dealing with the problem. Most such activity occurs between people who know each other all too well, not between people who have never met.
	The Home Affairs Committee identified the controversial issues of how rape should be defined, what protection should be given to a defendant and how consent should be defined. There is a question of what we should do about the controversial issue of exposure, including activities that should be permitted and when people should be allowed to walk around without clothes on. Thankfully, we have got rid of the nonsense of convicting people of an offence because someone under 16 has seen them walking around at home with no clothes on. Mercifully, that has been sorted out.
	Protecting children involves orders and registers, and we must ensure that offenders abroad are registered here. There is general agreement that the issue of the day—grooming for sexual purposes—should be an offence. That is welcome. There is, however, the caveat that we should not imply the commission of a further offence just because of a grooming prelude.
	The final general issue is that of anonymity, which is the most difficult general problem that we still face. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) alluded to that.
	I shall go into detail on only one aspect of the second tier of issues. We have to try to win the Home Secretary's magnum or flagon of champagne—I expected it to be bitter. It is nonsense that we criminalise young people between 13 and 16 for what may be minimal sexual activity that is not of a predatory nature—when it is effectively consensual—and is part of the natural process of an adolescent growing up. We all have to sort that out. There are enough crimes on the statute book and enough people criminalised without adding to it. Let us not be prudish and old fashioned. Throughout the history of the world, teenagers have explored themselves and each other, and that will continue. There is all the difference in the world between that and ensuring that activity with under-13s is unacceptable. That is what the Bill says, which is a good thing. There is no defence or excuse for interfering with under-13s. We should be clear that that is understood outside this place. That is why the event reported today, if it is true, of an adult running away with a child who is under 13 is serious and needs to be brought to a quick and satisfactory conclusion.
	Liberal Democrats share the view that we are right to be clear about the need to deal with abuses of positions of trust. That has never been clear before. It does not matter who abuses that trust—whether it is the sports coach and a person in the team, the teacher and a person in the class, the priest and a person in the church, or the voluntary sector leader and a person in the group. That abuse is wrong and the relationship must not be taken beyond what is acceptable. We welcome the fact that the Bill picks up on that and tries to extend the principle to the abuse of people through prostitution and pornography.
	I pay tribute to those who do the unglamorous work of tracking down people who commit such offences. In my previous life, I was involved in prosecutions on behalf of the police of people involved in those offences. It is a gruesome, unpleasant and sordid business. Police officers will often only do it for a couple of years before going on to other work because they cannot stand the grotesque horror of it. However, it is important that it is done. The charities and the voluntary sector that help with it are extremely valuable.
	On another point, I have a friend who has an adult daughter with learning difficulties. The mere fact of a child having learning difficulties does not mean that he or she should not have physical relationships with other people, although there used to be that presumption. I remember my friend telling me that when she was looking at a residential centre for her daughter, the person who ran it said, "Don't worry, Mrs. So-and-So, we'll make sure that your daughter doesn't get up to any hanky-panky", to which she said, "In that case, she's not coming, because I want her to live a full and fulfilled life like everyone else." It is important not to say that people with a mental disorder or learning difficulties should be precluded from normal sexual activity. The Bill is about not exploiting people; it is not about forbidding them from having a natural and normal life.
	I told the Home Secretary that we needed to ensure that information is shared across continents and borders so that those who abuse in one country cannot get away with moving somewhere else.
	It is important to get the rape issue right, not just because it is the most serious offence and the conviction rate is inadequate, but because it goes before a jury. I hope that that way of trying someone will be supported and upheld by the House of Lords when it considers the Criminal Justice Bill today. We must not change the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial just because of the sort of offence. That is why people laboured so hard to get the definition right, and I pay tribute to them. It may not be perfect, but the combination of clause 1 and clauses 76 and 77 is much clearer and will allow juries to receive much clearer guidance.
	The best way in which to deal with a high level of acquittals is to try to grasp the nettle of anonymity. There should not be party views on the issue. The argument for the anonymity of the defendant, the complainant or the witness is that it is less damaging if identity is not revealed. Even though a defendant may be acquitted, the reputation gained does not go away. We can all think without much prompting of television personalities and people in the arts, sports or public life who, as a result of an unproven allegation, have not escaped from under a black cloud for many years. Alternatively, there is the argument that, as a result of a trial and those participating being in the public eye, other people come forward having realised that they ought to say something too and that others should be convicted.
	The biggest danger is the press abusing its position. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I have been to see Ministers to say that we must prevent the publication of stories about prospective defendants—such stories are often leaked by the police—that take over the tabloids in particular and mean that there can be no fair trial. There have been some crude examples of that over the past year. I therefore hope that we can agree on provisions that offer protection from such exploitation. The issue goes wider than sex offences, although such cases are often the most vulnerable in that respect.
	My preference is that we adopt the proposal of the Home Affairs Committee: from the moment of arrest at the latest to the moment of charge, anonymity rules should apply for all parties. After that, they should not, but the courts should be able to receive applications in either direction. A court should be able to agree to a request for the continuing anonymity of a defendant, witness or complainant, or it could decide, on receiving an application setting out why it is not in the public interest to apply the anonymity rule, that there is a good case for not doing so.
	In the light of much constituency experience, I know that it is equally important that witnesses—not necessarily the complainant—receive the same protection, as they will often not come forward when they could substantiate a case because of the public embarrassment of doing so. The case might relate to a professional colleague or someone in the same family. We must bring everyone within such a remit.
	I repeat that convicting for grooming for sexual purposes is fine, but we must not presume that that means that people have committed the intended offence. The intended offence must be separately proved; presumption is not enough.
	I want to say a word about naturists. I do not know how many there are, but they have been making a lot of noise over recent months. Some of us accept that for many people nudity is not beautiful, although for others it is—all power to them and long may they celebrate it. I hope that we have struck the right balance in allowing people who want to walk around with nothing on to do so without prosecution while respecting that on some occasions that causes some people difficulty.
	That brings me to the protection of the public. I hope that we have reached a common-sense solution. If one goes behind the sixth hillock with somebody on a warm, summer afternoon, it is not the job of the state to send people in blue to find them and prosecute. If one goes behind the 28th sand dune on the left on the east English coast on a rare warm, summer day, that is not the business of the state either. However, places such as public conveniences, which are meant to be used by the public, should not be no-go areas for the citizens of this country when they need to use them for the purpose for which they were intended. That is not a sexist, homophobic or anti-gay point—public conveniences are meant to be safe places, but often they are taken over and have become thoroughly unpleasant places. When the Bill has completed its passage, there should be a sign on each one saying that they are to be used for the purposes for which they were intended, and other activity will be dealt with. I hope that we proceed by the means of public order legislation, which would be a better way of tackling the problem than sexual offences legislation.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Romsey have volunteered to serve as Liberal Democrat members of the Committee considering this difficult Bill. In Committee, they will not be able to secure the provision of better treatment for people whose mental and psychological problems lead to sex offences, so that is a battle that we must continue to fight elsewhere. Providing centres to treat people with such disorientations is just about the least popular cause in the country, but it has to be addressed. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friends will try to make sure, along with me and all our colleagues in the House, that we end up with a Bill that is modern, non-discriminatory, clear, enforceable and effective. I think that that is within our grasp, and it is a prize well worth attaining.

Neil Gerrard: I find myself in the unusual position of welcoming a Home Office Bill—I have not been too happy with the last two or three Home Office Bills that I have spoken about. The Bill deals with some difficult areas but, as we have already seen in our debate, there is a lot of general agreement about its direction. It is now a question of looking at the detail and getting it right.
	I want to say something about the provisions on trafficking but, before I do so, I will comment on what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said about the difficult argument about anonymity in rape cases. I do not think that anyone is now arguing that there should not be anonymity for the complainant. The need for such anonymity has been generally accepted for some time, as it encourages reporting. We know about failure rates in the system and the low rate of conviction, but should the defendant have the right to anonymity? I believe that the Bill as it stands goes too far—we ought to look at what happens before a charge is made, not after. What the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said about publicity is the key to the problem. It is often the police who pass information on. The News of the World discovers that a particular individual is being taken to a particular police station on a particular day because it has been told by someone in the police force, who has probably done it for a fairly small amount of money. Money often changes hands when such information is passed on, and we have to look at ways of dealing with that through the police service and the press, rather than start to extend anonymity provisions, as the amendment in the Lords has done.

Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman may be gratified to hear that most of the senior policemen I have talked to would back what he is saying, as they have had many a case destroyed by publicity. If they could catch the individuals who have released that information to the papers they would be gratified and there would be heavy repercussions.

Neil Gerrard: I am sure that is right. There can be nothing more frustrating for a senior policeman who has been investigating a case than to have it damaged or destroyed by someone leaking what is happening.
	The question of trafficking was addressed my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), and I shall try not to repeat what she said. I have been interested in the subject for some time, as there are links with the smuggling that goes on in immigration and asylum cases, which are one of my major areas of interest. Two or three years ago, like a number of other hon. Members, I took part in the parliamentary police scheme, and spent a little time with the Chinese unit and the vice unit in the Metropolitan police. It was interesting to hear what police officers, particularly those in the Chinese unit, had to say about the amount of smuggling and trafficking of people that was going on.
	There is a distinction between smuggling and trafficking, as the Government now recognise. If someone who is trying to get into the country for immigration purposes or to work illegally pays someone to bring them here, it is almost a commercial transaction. They pay to be brought in and that is the end of the business, whereas trafficking is quite different and ends up with people being exploited when they get into the country. It is a modern form of slavery, involving debt bondage—debts that they can never pay off, and perhaps with a family back in the country of origin still paying off a debt.
	As the Bill deals with sexual offences, I understand why it refers to trafficking for sexual exploitation, but I hope we will not lose sight of the fact that a considerable amount of trafficking goes on for labour purposes. That involves not only children, but adults, and it is not just for domestic service. There are other areas, especially in some service industries, where a significant amount of trafficking for labour purposes goes on. That is just as bad as trafficking of the sort addressed by the Bill.
	Many of the people—certainly, many of the adults—who have been trafficked may well come to the UK thinking that they are going to work in a legitimate job. They may even come knowing full well that they are going to work in the sex business. People are told that they can earn good money working in a club, in a strip club or as a prostitute, but they may not understand what is really going to happen to them when they get here.
	Some poor countries—for example, Thailand—have an indigenous sex industry. I recently saw it suggested that because of the extent of the sex industry in Bangkok, the amount of money sent back to poor families in the rural areas of Thailand by women working in the sex industry in Bangkok exceeds any Government aid to those areas. Working in the sex trade is almost an accepted way of getting some money to the family, so we can understand how somebody might think, "If I could go to London, I could make a lot of money", but when they get here, they find that they are not making any money at all and are virtual slaves.
	It is probably as profitable a criminal activity internationally to traffick people as to deal in drugs. There is not a huge amount of hard evidence about what is happening in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned the ECPAT study and the study that was reported in the police research paper published in 2000. Those papers suggested that there might be 1,500 women a year being trafficked into the UK to work in prostitution. The police research paper reported on a check carried out by police on 50 flats in Soho. In those 50 flats, the majority of the women were migrants—125 of the 148 women were from the Balkans, mostly from Albania. There is clearly organisation there. Very few English women now work in the flats in Soho. The work has been taken over. Although some of those women may not have been trafficked, there is little doubt that a significant number would have been.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is right—the key to dealing with the problem is not just introducing legislation that imposes penalties, but making that legislation work. We will make it work only if the people who have been trafficked are genuinely regarded as victims and are given the support that they need to be prepared to give evidence. The pilot scheme is under way and it has Home Office funding. I think that it has 11 places for women who have been trafficked. That is a small number, but it is a beginning. West Sussex social services have been running a safe house specifically for child victims. We have got to get the links with our policies on removal and asylum right. If the message that goes out to victims is, "If the police find you, you will be deported," it is highly unlikely that many of them will be willing to risk giving evidence. Deporting somebody may mean that they go back to the people who trafficked them in the first place and fall back into risk.
	I know that some work has been done, particularly through the Metropolitan police, to look at ways of getting more evidence for prosecutions through intelligence gathering. We need to encourage such work and put more effort in so that cases do not depend so much on individuals being prepared to act as witnesses. There are other information sources, but there is no question but that a lot of police forces do not give much attention to them. They do not have much knowledge and experience in such things and assume that they do not happen in their area. Northampton is a good example; it is clear that not only London is affected and that such activities could be happening anywhere in the country.
	Furthermore, if we are going to make the legislation work, we will undoubtedly need prevention campaigns in countries of origin. In many cases, countries of origin are poor and countries of reception, such as the UK, are rich. The reason why trafficking operates in that direction is obvious. The movement is not always from poor to rich, but that is very often the case.
	I am pleased that we have made progress. It was back in 2000 that we signed the European Union protocol stating that we would introduce legislation on trafficking. We have got to make the arrangements work and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how we can extend them into the areas that the Bill does not cover.
	I wish to raise two other issues of concern. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to people who are on the sex offenders register in respect of acts that are no longer an offence. For example, a gay man who was convicted for involvement in sexual activity with a 17-year-old will have ended up on the register. I understand the difficulties that are involved in dealing with this issue. At the time of conviction, there may not have been much questioning as to whether an act was consensual if it was an offence anyway. The Home Office may have reservations about taking people off the sex offenders register when the act was not consensual—a matter that might not be easy to distinguish. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) follows my point. If the offence was involvement in sexual activity with someone under 18, the court may not have concerned itself with the issue of consent. Nevertheless, even if we cannot agree to an amendment that wipes people off the register, I hope that we can consider mechanisms enabling people to apply for removal and put forward the facts of their case.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because I have not been present in the Chamber for most of the debate, although I have seen it on television. He is making a very important point. Does he share the belief of many people that taking some of the names off the register will make it a more reliable source of information in the hands of the police and local communities?

Neil Gerrard: That is absolutely right. I understand the logic of the argument that we cannot retrospectively remove an offence. If somebody committed an act that was illegal, the conviction cannot be wiped off the slate. However, it is clear that if somebody is not a danger, it is pointless to include them on a register that will be used to check whether a person is a danger.
	The other point about the sex offenders register that concerns me somewhat is that it is possible that somebody's name could be put on the register when they have merely been cautioned for an offence. If the police did not regard what was happening as serious enough to merit a charge, there is a question mark over whether that person should appear on the register.

Debra Shipley: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I was unable to attend earlier. As he knows, because he took part in that debate, I was responsible for the Protection of Children Act 1999. So-called soft information was to be put on to the register because otherwise young people would be at risk and because it gave the opportunity to check for more information. The reason for keeping somebody who has been a convicted offender on the register for ever is that if they had made a serious sexual attack on a child, say, 20 years ago, they may well offend again, and the law should not permit them to do so.

Neil Gerrard: I have no difference of view about somebody who has attacked a child—that person is on the register and should stay there. Rather, I am concerned about a relatively small number of cases involving particularly people who, as a result of the change in the age of consent, would not now be regarded as having committed an offence.
	Clauses 121 to 127, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), could have wide implications. The police can apply for a risk of sexual harm order on the grounds that the defendant has, on at least two occasions, committed one of a number of acts. One of those acts is to give a child anything that relates to sexual activity, which, as the notes to the Bill state, could include a condom. We should remember that a child is defined in this context as someone who is under 16. I can imagine that in a number of situations a person might feel that it was in the best interests of a child of that age to give them a condom. This part of the Bill allows orders to be issued against someone who has not been convicted of anything. When it becomes known that a person has had a risk of sexual harm order placed on them, they will find it almost as bad as having had a conviction, because they will still be seen as a paedophile. One of the arguments about anonymity in rape cases is that people say that there is no smoke without fire—that if a person has been charged, there must be something to it. That argument applies at least equally strongly in this case.
	It might be argued that the police and courts will not apply for orders on trivial grounds—although I can think of one or two ex-chief constables whom I would not have trusted not to do so—but we should not afford them that opportunity. I hope that when we reach this part of the Bill in Committee we can debate an amendment or, at the very least, ensure that the guidance that goes to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service makes it absolutely clear what sorts of cases the provision should be used for. It has the potential to catch a very wide range of activities, at least some of which most people would not regard as problematic.
	Overall, the Bill makes considerable progress. It reforms the law on some difficult subjects in a way that receives broad consent. That is an achievement and I hope that we can sort out the problems in Committee and end with a measure that will work.

Paul Beresford: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). If he serves on the Committee, I hope that he will accept an offer that I have already extended from Detective Chief Inspector Sarti of the paedophile unit at Scotland Yard to attend a brief teach-in. I have spoken to a Home Office Minister about the subject and she believes that it is a good idea.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow is right that there are problems, but we need to know where the taskforce came from to understand how it reached its current position, so that if the Committee wants to improve on its suggestions, it does not lose sight of the objective.
	The Bill is unusual for several reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, most people who examine the measure—including some of my constituents who knew that I aimed to speak about it—become squeamish and are horrified. The attendance in the Chamber suggests that everybody supports the Bill and wants something to be done, but no one wants to read about it in the newspapers or get too close to the issues.
	The second rarity is the considerable co-operation between members of all parties who show an interest in the Bill. When the White Paper was announced, the Home Secretary asked for co-operation, and I asked for it to be two-way. To a great extent, that has happened in the other place and I hope that that continues in Committee and on Report here.
	We have a rare opportunity that we must not miss. It has taken a long time to introduce such a Bill and I suspect that there will be no similar measure for a long time. We have an opportunity to take pre-emptive action in the Bill. The police have been considering some of the changes, especially those in IT, for a long time. Whatever we think of paedophiles, they are not thick. I watched an interview of a paedophile under treatment who was a rocket scientist. His understanding of IT and opportunities to use it to confound the police were considerable.
	I shall restrict my comments to the provisions that deal with sexual offences against children and with those commonly known as paedophiles. Like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I did the police parliamentary course in 1999–2000. I was lucky enough to do it with the Metropolitan Police Authority, which covered everything, such as fast cars, guns, criminal intelligence, kidnapping and police dogs. That was all immensely instructive. However, I was scarred by the day I visited the paedophile unit. I did not know that individuals with such incredible desires existed. I did not have the benefit—if that is the right word—of being a barrister and of having practised in the courts. I am surrounded by members of the legal profession again today. I was stunned by the information on the internet, the links through it and paedophiles' use of it to stimulate their activities. I was shocked that the paedophile information exchange used it to stimulate other activities and that members of such organisations frequently required "fresh", as they put it, photographs. That meant the abuse of yet another child or children to produce them. I could barely imagine the harm that was done to children. Some photographs and films are of children who are young enough to wear nappies.
	The police's conservative estimate is that there are approximately 230,000 active paedophiles in the country—one for every street. They also estimate that one in nine are female. Rose West and Myra Hindley are the best known examples. Public interest was stimulated by three brave programmes that BBC 2 broadcast. Those who cared to watch or could stand watching them found that the practice had gone on for many years. I remember some of the interviewees saying that, as children—they were now grandparents—they could remember seeing men with cameras at the swimming pool photographing the kids. This has been going on for years. The first two programmes focused on one particular group of paedophiles who had been grooming—engaging in "the hobby", as they put it—since 1957. That gives us an idea of how many children those four or five men must have damaged.
	The other thing that stood out in the programmes was the fact that many paedophiles need to record their activities. They do so—for their own use—using the written word, photographs, tape recordings, videos, computers, CD-ROMs and, latterly, DVDs. Of course, what they are recording is the abuse of children, and if anyone has any doubt about that, they should watch the third programme that the BBC put out, which was quite startling and really thumped home what these people were recording. I will not go into details, because there is no watershed here and we must remember that there are people in the Strangers Gallery.
	My reaction was to ask the police why, if they knew about all these individuals, more of them were not put away. They said that they needed changes in the law, and that they had been told that such changes were coming. I decided, along with an American researcher, Michael Hansen, who is now a law student in the US, to get stuck into seeing what was being done here and in the rest of the world. We used the internet and talked to people in a large number of places including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
	Under the aegis of the Conservative Front Bench, I then introduced a number of new clauses when the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill was being considered on Report. I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who was then a Minister of State at the Home Office, was very positive about my proposals. That was not really a surprise, as he is a family man and a Methodist. I thought that his reaction was quite normal. Some of the proposals that were put forward in another place were accepted, but there was also an acceptance that these matters would be looked at in this Bill. Many of them have been. It is vitally important—we need to remember this in Committee—that it was recognised that we should be proactive rather than reactive in these matters, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention. If we are reactive, a child—if not more than one—has already been damaged.
	I also had the pleasure of being put on the taskforce, on which some really imaginative proactive thinking took place. The core legal changes on internet grooming are down to that group, which contained everyone across the range including the police, the NSPCC and many other organisations that are deeply concerned with freedoms and rights. What came out of those deliberations was an amalgam, and we need to remember that when we consider the Bill in Committee.
	I have been talking recently to some Americans who were over here for a case led by Valeria Spencer, an assistant attorney at the United States Department of Justice. They are watching what we are doing in the Bill with considerable interest. This morning, the "Today" programme took a shot—as is its wont—at the Bill, suggesting that it is all very well us doing this here, but that the internet is international. I was sorry that I could not ring up and intervene. The Bill is being considered right across the world, and many other countries that are looking into these matters are watching to see what happens here. If this legislation works—and I think it will—they will adopt such measures themselves. Equally, there are one or two things being done in other countries that we ought to seize the opportunity to consider in Committee.
	I say that because I believe that this is a one-off chance. In Committee and on Report, we shall discuss a number of difficulties that my hon. Friends and Labour Members have already touched on. For a change, that will be done in the right atmosphere. Our deliberations will not be aggressive, and they will provide an opportunity to make a real change, bearing in mind that it will be our last chance to do so for a number of years.
	The issue that I really want to touch on in Committee is encryption. The taskforce and the Home Secretary know that I have an interest in this. Technology is moving very fast, and the paedophile internet exchange group had a ringleader who dodged prosecution because the police could not break the encryption on his disk. It was a fairly simple form of encryption bought for about $50 in the United States, but it could not be broken by the police or the security forces. An approach was made in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to change that. Unfortunately, that aspect of the legislation was not implemented and it would be inappropriate, sadly, to apply it to paedophiles or abuses against children. I hope that we can now start to examine the problem further.
	In the United States a considerable amount of child porn is sold encrypted on DVDs and CD-ROMs. Much of it comes from Russia, but the police cannot break into it. If it is bought by individuals and put on their computer files—the material may appear from the outside to be about Robin Hood and his merry men—until the encryption code is obtained, access to it cannot be gained. Paedophiles previously recorded their activities on video, but they now use DVDs and CD-ROMs in encrypted form. Often the opportunity for the police to nail individuals for some absolutely horrendous crimes—they could do it before, because videos could not be encrypted—is no longer there. We will find it very difficult indeed to deal with that obstacle.
	The Home Secretary said that much could be done beyond the Bill, and he is absolutely right. Much has already been done—by the Home Office taskforce, organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others, and by the Metropolitan police, in conjunction with Crimestoppers. An effective interactive programme has been developed to take into schools for the appropriate age groups, and it will be polished up and developed. It engages the children in internet activities, explains their importance, but also brings in warnings. The children are brought into what they believe is a chat room, but next door there is really a large and ugly policeman who is typing in the name of Alice or some other name. The children react to it; they give their telephone numbers and addresses; a meet is arranged. The children all fall into that, but of course the mobile telephone of one of the children in the room then rings, the door opens, and the biggest, ugliest, tallest, largest Metropolitan policeman who can be found enters the room declaring that he is Alice. It brings the message home to the children.
	We will have to follow this matter up and reflect further on it, but what often happens is that the children start to talk to their teachers or the police about their experiences. Many children have already had them, though their parents do not know it and the children have often not told anyone else. If this form of education can continue and develop, we can move on through Crimestoppers to the police, who can then take action. I suspect that the public and perhaps even the police are unaware of the extent to which such internet grooming goes on.
	I welcome the Bill; I welcome the fact that it is non-partisan, and I hope that we can keep it that way. I also hope that we do not do what The Economist did in a recent article on child porn—forget that for every single photograph of a child, a child has been abused. I hope that the author of that article thinks a little further. How would he have felt if a photograph of him or his mother, son or daughter had been put on the internet for ever? I welcome the fact that the Bill will be dealt with in Committee with an open mind. I hope that we make the most of our limited opportunity, and that we are proactive and think forward—particularly in respect of the internet and information technology. 4.24 pm

Hilton Dawson: It is good to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate, particularly to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who made such an effective and serious contribution. We have all been informed, instructed—and, indeed, shocked—by what he had to say.
	I do not think that the Bill's importance can be overstated. I am sure that all of us acknowledge that sexual abuse can have the most devastating consequences, and that it can undermine and destroy people's lives.
	The Bill is important in another way. It covers areas of law and policy that are complex and sensitive, and which test a difficult area—the shifting balance between private lives and the proper concerns of Government. The problems are especially acute for young people at different ages and levels of maturity, who are bound to test the boundaries set for them by concerned parents and by Governments.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), in recent years I have sometimes criticised the Government and the Home Office for legislating in haste, but it is clear that the care, thought, discussion and listening that have gone into the Home Office review of sexual offences and the White Paper were carried on in the debate in another place. On the evidence of today, that process will continue in this House. The rewards of that excellent consultative and participatory approach will be evident in legislation that will be thorough and well balanced.
	I commend the Government on the Bill, and look forward to its further improvement. I commend them too on their determination to protect the public from dangerous offenders, and on their courage and humanity in their approach to modernising and equalising the law on sexual offences.
	I could go on for some time about those matters, but I will confine my remarks mostly to the Bill's impact on children. I am extremely grateful to Lisa Payne and Alison Lindsay of the National Children's Bureau for their production of a child impact statement on behalf of the all-party children group.
	It is important that the Bill carries a statement by the Home Secretary to the effect that he considers its provisions to be compatible with the European convention on human rights. I look forward to the day when Governments place statements on all Bills asserting that they are compatible with the UN convention on children's rights. Legislation will be much better and more effective if we make a close assessment of the impact of proposals on the lives of children.
	I welcome the Bill's emphasis on certain issues, including the age of consent at 16. The Government have brought about the equalisation of the age of consent at 16, and I consider that to be very important. For a host of reasons connected to child protection, it is very important that we give out consistent messages about the age of consent and that we reaffirm the significance of the age of 16. I welcome the proposal to increase to life imprisonment, in certain circumstances, the sentence for people convicted of the sexual abuse of a child. The new offence of sexual activity with a child under 16 is important, and I very much welcome the new offence of sexual grooming.
	We have seen some real progress on child prostitution. We can only estimate the scale of that problem, but I have no doubt that it is considerable. For the first time, we have a specific set of offences to deal with the commercial sexual exploitation of children, again with the most severe penalties for people who abuse children through prostitution. I also welcome the extension of legislation to children of 16 and 17. The more we recognise and reaffirm that children are children until the age of 18, the better our legislation will be.
	I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary affirm that children who are abused through prostitution will not be liable to prosecution for any criminal offence. That is an essential child protection measure. I hope that the impact of the provision will be reviewed throughout government. I am worried that the guidance that still prevails in some parts of government reflects old legislation and the old status, when children were criminalised when they should have been protected.
	We have already heard some effective speeches on trafficking. This Bill is an opportunity for the Government to get to grips with that horrendous problem. I welcome the new offence. With other hon. Members I question the fact that no separation is being put in place between adults and children. That means that someone could be convicted of trafficking a child to this country, abusing the child and enabling others to do so, and could end up with a sentence of six months' imprisonment. That is inappropriate and needs to be tackled.
	An even bigger issue is the fact that we simply do not know the scale of trafficking in this country. In West Sussex, where much work has been done around the safe house project and with immigration authorities at Gatwick airport, we know that hundreds of children are coming through the airport, largely from west Africa, on their way here or to other European countries to be sexually abused. There is no reason to suppose that any port in the country is free from the problem. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) it crops up in places that do not have ports or airports.
	The Government need to face up to that problem. It needs to be taken out of the arena of asylum and immigration legislation and located within child protection. We need some thorough research to find out the extent of the problem; some good work on ways to deal with children who are trafficked to this country; and some effective models of good practice.
	We need to ensure that such children are not sent straight back into the hands of traffickers. When they come to the attention of the authorities in this country, they must not be simply returned to their country of origin, back into abusive situations where they might be killed. We need to ensure that they are protected in this country. That should be one of the Government's first duties.
	Although the safe house project is not the perfect model for dealing with children in such circumstances, it has done good work, yet it is under threat of closure. There are examples of local authorities elsewhere in the country taking similar initiatives, but because they are under pressure from lack of resources and heavy work loads, they have largely turned a blind eye to the problem. The Government need to take a lead in dealing with the problem by identifying good models of practice and resourcing them effectively. Trafficking needs further consideration.
	Other Members have referred to the new offence of sexual touching and the problems that could arise in relation to mutually agreed behaviour among peers. When I attended debates on another Bill, bottles of wine were offered as a challenge to people to pronounce the names of Welsh constituencies but, so far, I have not been offered large quantities of champagne by a Secretary of State for a contribution to a Bill. It cannot be beyond the wit of the House to come up with an amendment along the lines that nothing in the Bill should criminalise behaviour that, in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person, would constitute normal adolescent experience. In reaffirming the significance of 16 as the age of consent, it behoves us all us to find a sensible way of dealing with the ordinary experiences of adolescence and mutually agreed behaviour among peers.
	The strong prohibition against any activity involving children aged under 13 is of enormous significance. In legislating for children, we face a dichotomy: they are seen as either victims or villains. If we set such store by the age of 13, we should also consider raising the age of criminal responsibility to that age, as the implication of the proposals is that we would still be criminalising the disturbed behaviour of under-13-year-olds who abuse other children.
	We should not ignore the estimate that about a quarter of all rape victims are children, and that about a quarter of the offences against them are committed by other children. We need to address the issue thoroughly, and to deal with it therapeutically rather than by criminalising the disturbed behaviour of children who commit such offences. As has been said already, if we can deal with that behaviour at a very young age, we might be able to stop young people developing into serious offenders when they become adults.
	Using the sex offenders register for young children is not appropriate; we need to develop a range of assessment and treatment services for them. It is important that we adopt a strategic approach to children who display sexually harmful behaviour, and I very much welcome the Home Secretary's reference to establishing a ministerial committee on sex offending, which will give us the opportunity to take an holistic approach to prevention, protection and support in this very disturbing area of social policy.
	As I have said, the Bill raises issues apart from the age of consent vis-à-vis the age of criminal responsibility and children's legislation vis-à-vis asylum legislation, and we also need to adopt an holistic approach to the treatment of adult offenders. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to visit a treatment centre for men who have sexually abused children. Some of them have been convicted of very serious offences against children. Some of them have recognised that their behaviour was extremely worrying and possibly extremely damaging. I found it a challenging experience to meet those people and to hear about some of the things that they had done. I was incredibly impressed by the work done to encourage and challenge those men and to make them face up to the reality of the abuse that they had carried out.
	The Government have faced a very difficult issue, very bravely. As a society, we simply have to face up to the fact that there are a lot of sex offenders out there and that there are effective ways to deal with their behaviour, but this is a real, big issue for all hon. Members and for all those who represent communities. We need a really good network of treatment centres for people who sexually abuse others, particularly children. Until we have those centres, we will not have an holistic approach that takes in legislation and the development of a range of policies. Until we treat those people and deal with their extremely aberrant, dangerous and horrific behaviour, we cannot say that we are protecting children. I welcome the Bill; it has some way to go, but, on the whole, it is extremely positive.

George Osborne: This has been one of the most constructive and interesting debates in which I have been fortunate enough to take part during the two years that I have been a Member of Parliament. That constructiveness was exemplified not only by the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but particularly by the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who obviously spoke with enormous experience and passion on the subject.
	I also commend the Home Secretary, first, for his willingness to accept most of the improvements that were introduced in the House of Lords and, secondly, for saying that he will consider some of the proposals not only from my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, but from Back Benchers. I want to restrict my remarks to the issue that I raised in an intervention during the Home Secretary's speech: child trafficking and clauses 59 to 61.
	Of course, the trafficking of human beings has gone on since the dawn of time, and has involved unimaginable human misery and suffering. These days, it usually, although not exclusively, involves women and children and a highly sophisticated and lucrative network and business that affects every country in the world. I want to pay tribute to the work of UNICEF in bringing this issue to our attention, and to its campaign and publication, "End Child Exploitation: Faces of Exploitation", which I hold up to show Members—not something that I have done before, but there is always a first time. I pay tribute in particular to Jenny Willott and her team for bringing these issues to the attention of Members of Parliament.
	As a number of Members have said, it is difficult to estimate the number of victims of trafficking, because, almost by definition, it is a clandestine activity. In 1997, the US State Department made a stab at estimating how many people were involved, and suggested 700,000. The United Nations now thinks that the figure is closer to 1.2 million, and I am delighted that UNICEF is doing more work in this area and hopes at the end of this month to come forward with more research giving us a better idea of the scale of the problem that we face. We do not need that research to tell us, however, that it is a very serious problem. For every single victim involved, it is a human tragedy, especially when children are affected.
	As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said in her speech—of course, she speaks with some authority on these issues—much of the trafficking about which we are talking takes place within certain regions of the world, such as west Africa, in relation to trafficking for forced labour and forced domestic service, and south-east Asia, in relation to trafficking of children and women for sexual exploitation.
	What I want to focus on—as we are most likely to have a direct impact on it—is those who are trafficked into the UK, either as an end destination or when passing through. One of the aspects of the Bill that I welcome particularly is that its scope is broad enough to catch people who are involved at all stages of the supply chain: those responsible for the feeding of people, the provision of transport and so on. That is all spelled out in the explanatory notes, which is very welcome.
	As I said, it is difficult to know how many people are involved, but there are many signs that this is a growing problem for this country. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has already told us, whereas three years ago 85 per cent. of the sex workers in Soho were British, 85 per cent. of them now are foreign, most of them from central and eastern Europe. Some of them, of course, will be children, who are treated with a cruelty and brutality that we find difficult to comprehend, involving everything from beatings to gang rapes to enforced drug dependency. As a society, we recognise the particular heinousness of crimes when they involve children, which is what much of this Bill is about. The press release that came out when the Bill was published said that the protection of children was at its heart. That is the case, with one exception: the clauses relating to trafficking.
	That was the point that I made to the Home Secretary, because I think that those clauses are a mistake. Under the Bill as it stands, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre pointed out, trafficking offences involving children could attract the lower sentence in a magistrates court of a maximum of six months imprisonment or even just a fine. That does not reflect—I probably speak for other Members in saying so—the seriousness of trafficking offences involving children. In my view, those cases should only be referred to a Crown court and should attract the higher maximum sentences set out in this legislation.
	The Home Secretary, in his response to my intervention, was incredibly positive and helpful in the sense that he said that he would look specifically at this issue and at whether a distinction should be made for offences involving children. I hope he does so. I am pleased that others who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for Northampton, North, raised that point. I hope also that the Minister, who is my constituency neighbour and a good and reasonable person, takes that issue on board. As he will probably be doing the spade work in Committee, he might address it there.
	Passing the trafficking legislation, welcome though that is, will not in itself be enough. First, the legislation has to work. This is a key aspect: the child's point of entry to the UK—either an airport or elsewhere—clearly represents a critical moment, because it is almost certainly the best and often the only opportunity to rescue them from exploitation and the lifelong damage that will follow.
	It is vital that immigration officials and others who may come into contact with trafficked victims have the right training. The Home Office has set up a working group, and there is a "tool kit" and all sorts of jargon for people who are involved, but all this comes down to a simple thing—getting the right training so that our immigration officials and others can recognise vulnerable children, spot the tell-tale signs showing that a child might be being trafficked and intervene.
	As other Members have said, we must ensure that the care provided for those vulnerable children is adequate. Most are placed in ordinary social services accommodation, but they often escape or simply walk out of the door. Also, they often make contact with the person who trafficked them in the first place. That may seem strange on the face of it, but it is not. Think about it: these children are far from home and frightened. Probably the only person they know is the person who brought them into the country. Of course, they might not be aware of what is in store for them on being trafficked, so that leads them to make contact again with their trafficker, which leads to horrendous circumstances.

David Cameron: Like others, my hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on the problems of trafficking, but is not part of the problem the fact that our asylum system invites traffickers to abuse it? Although it is clearly right to tighten up the criminal law and do all the things that the Bill is doing, will it ever be possible to clamp down on trafficking of children and prostitutes while we have an asylum system that does not consider having a quota of asylum seekers coming to this country who could be processed properly nearer to their countries of origin? That would enable us to bring over to this country vulnerable people fleeing persecution, rather than leave so much of the asylum system as it is—in the hands of the traffickers.

George Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall not be drawn into a discussion of the asylum system, but, of course, he is absolutely right. Many of the criminal gangs involved in the asylum trade are also involved in the trafficking trade. Those are distinct problems, as people who use criminal gangs to seek asylum are conscious of what they are doing whereas often people being trafficked are not conscious of what is in store for them. My hon. Friend is right that we shall leave a gaping hole in the protection that we offer people who face trafficking until we tackle the abuses of the asylum system.
	We need to consider what is called a statutory period of reflection, which countries such as Sweden, Italy and the United States have pioneered. It would give victims a certain period in which they would be allowed to remain in the UK while options for their future were considered. I am talking about a period of around six months. Obviously, simply returning a child to the country of origin places that child at tremendous risk of being re-trafficked and exploited. Indeed, the UNICEF document contains some pretty horrific case studies.

Annette Brooke: Do not the countries that provide such extra care and a period of reflection have more successful prosecutions of traffickers?

George Osborne: The hon. Lady is exactly right because that is exactly what the evidence suggests. I do not know whether there is a direct link because the statistics perhaps show that those countries are better at handling the issues in general and are on top of the trafficking problem.
	A period of reflection would be a great advantage because it would enable us to give victims real counselling and help, which must be our first priority, and make it more likely that victims would give evidence and testify against traffickers. One of the biggest problems that the police face when dealing with the crime is finding people, who are often scared and frightened children or young women, to stand up in a court of law and give evidence against powerful criminal gangs, many of which have links with the community or village in the country from which they came. Other countries have tackled the traffickers more effectively, which has restricted the trafficking trade and caused the criminal gangs to turn their attentions elsewhere.
	I agree with what several hon. Members said and hope that the Government will introduce legislation to deal with trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation, such as forced labour and domestic service. The matter was raised in the House of Lords and the then Minister, Lord Bassam, said:
	"Work is in progress on developing an offence of trafficking for labour exploitation. As yet no legislative vehicle has been identified for taking that forward"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 222.]
	I understand that the Bill is not such a legislative vehicle and that there are pressures on fitting legislation into the Government's programme. However, I urge the Minister to address the issue, not least because we have pretty serious international obligations. We have signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the UN protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children—I had to write that one down although it is pretty important. The framework decision on trafficking that the European Union adopted last year compels member states to incorporate trafficking legislation in domestic law within two years.
	Let me get it absolutely straight that the Bill is a huge step in the right direction. There is an opportunity to do more and I urge the Minister to make trafficking involving children a distinct offence. If he introduces legislation to address trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation, he will have done a truly good job.

Vera Baird: I congratulate the Home Secretary on a Bill that will significantly clarify and update the law on sexual offences. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who said that legislation on its own is not always the complete answer. That is true when one considers rape. However, before I contextualise the new changes and outline what I hope the changes to rape law will bring, I congratulate the Home Secretary on the insight that underpins the new way in which the Bill defines the offence of rape.
	Rape is an important and serious problem in our society. It is thought that one in five women and a number of men suffer rape or sexual violence at some time during their lives. Although it is well understood that rape is under-reported, rape reporting is currently at an all-time high. There were 3,391 reports of rape in 1990 and the figures for 2001, which are the latest figures that I have been able to get hold of, show that there were 9,008 reports in that year. The number of reports has more than doubled and almost tripled during a decade. However, the conviction rate was 25 per cent. in 1990—no one suggested that that was too high. Given that the conviction rate was only 5.8 per cent. in 2001, I think I can say that the conviction rate has slumped.
	Last April, Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary produced a joint report on the way in which rape is investigated and prosecuted. The report said that rape was the most traumatising of offences and noted the profound impact that it has on victims' lives. It is, indeed, a travesty that so few examples of that serious offence result in a conviction. There is, of course, no deterrence in a very low conviction rate, so the changes to the law are especially important.
	However, compared with other crimes, far fewer complaints about rape get to court. There is a big drop-out rate, some of which is due to women withdrawing their complaints. A lot of research confirms that part of the reason for that is that they fear that the details of previous sexual history—true or false—will be put to them. They are also worried about being asked whether they were wearing a short dress or scarlet lipstick, with the intention of showing that that licensed the attack or that they are promiscuous and not worthy of belief. As I said to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), the Government wisely and effectively sought to abolish the admissibility of previous sexual history to show consent as long ago as 1999, but it is still admissible, even as we discuss clause 1, to show that the defendant believed that the complainant was consenting.
	On the drop-out rate, there is much less point in changing the law if we cannot get women to court to sustain complaints to trial. I acknowledge that the Government have done much to get more women to court, but for clauses 1, 75 and 76—the rape-related clauses—to be effective, there is more that they should do. They have encouraged excellent police initiatives to train front-line staff to be supportive to rape complainants in a way that they were not before. Project Sapphire, run by the Metropolitan police, has an active investigation policy for rapes. As well as giving support to complainants, the key to rape convictions is to find corroborative evidence so that the deadlock of his word against hers, and vice versa, is broken. The Government have encouraged that approach through excellent initiatives.
	However, the amount of moral support and help a complainant—male or female—gets at the outset is in direct proportion to his or her ability to sustain a complaint to prosecution and for it to be held up in court. Although that is well known, when we discuss clauses 1, 75 and 76, we will have to face the fact that four rape crisis centres have closed for want of funds in the past 18 months. If the Bill is to work, and as women will only sustain complaints if they are given support at the outset and throughout their trauma, it is essential that the Government establish a clear, strong and well-resourced policy of support for rape complainants.
	The Government should do more to encourage the creation of sexual assault referral centres. Those are usually adjacent to hospitals. The units are run by specialists for the benefit solely of the victims of sexual assault. A woman can go there with the police, or on her own, or she can phone and be brought to it. She is treated as a patient rather than a witness. No decisions are forced on her and no detailed statements are taken; just enough to allow the relevant health checks. She is encouraged to give samples in case she wants to prosecute, but with no obligation to make the decision to do so then. She is examined by an expert who has the expertise to give evidence about findings, going way beyond that of most forensic medical examiners at police stations who are GPs with generalised experience. Counselling can be arranged. A change of clothes can be arranged. She can be taken home. The police can be brought in the next day to take a statement if that is what she wants. It will, of course, be a specialist-trained officer who liaises with the sexual assault referral centre.
	SARCs offer the best kind of support. One in every major urban centre would reduce the drop-out rate significantly and enhance the impact of the changes in the law. At the moment, however, there are only six sexual assault referral centres in the country, so in many areas such as mine on Teesside, complainants cannot receive the support that such resources can supply.
	Cleveland police—my local force—and I are organising a conference of stakeholders for September in order to consider creating a Teesside SARC. That requires input not only from the police, because such centres aid detection, but from health trusts, because the after-effects of rape are a major health issue. Most of all, there is a need for finance or a definite prioritising by the Home Office of police and health funding. Not a large amount of money is needed to run a centre. REACH, the excellent centre in Newcastle upon Tyne, runs on about £250,000 a year.
	SARCs should be linked to the national rape helpline, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly referred, so that by calling a single number, a woman can receive local help wherever the traumatising crime occurs. Project Sapphire, which works closely with The Haven, a sexual assault referral centre in south London, is sure that its next figures will show a lower drop-out rate and a better conviction rate owing to that liaison.
	Getting women to court requires such a step to be taken, and to be taken now. There is little point in improving the law on rape, which ought to encourage more women to come forward, if they are not given support when they do so. If what has been done and what is still to be done succeeds in getting women to court, what happens? At the moment, there is a 45 per cent. conviction rate for rape cases that arrive in court. For all other offences, there is a 73 per cent. conviction rate. In all judgments made, from the woman involved deciding whether to proceed, to the judgment of police on whether to proceed, to the Crown Prosecution Service deciding whether to proceed, what will happen in court plays a major part. The low conviction rate becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	Clause 1 can make a significant difference in court. As most people are beginning to realise, 90 per cent. of rape is committed by people who are acquainted with the complainant—not by strangers. That means that, inevitably, the issue is consent and whether the defendant believed that she was consenting. It is to the second test that clause 1 brings a change.
	At present, the second test is totally subjective. "Are you sure", the jury is asked, "that he did not, however unreasonably, believe that she was consenting?" Owing to comments made in the other place, I want to make it clear that the defence of believing in consent is always—I repeat always—run at court. Doubt was cast on that by some of their lordships. Such a defence is especially run since the admissibility of previous sexual history was limited in 1999 to supporting the defence of consent. The way to get round the prohibition is to run belief in consent because previous sexual history is still admissible in order to support it. If, in a rape trial, a man goes into the witness box and says, "She was consenting," which of course he must do in every case, the defence that he believed that she was consenting is automatically raised and the judge has a duty to leave that belief to the jury for its consideration.
	The present law allows that to happen. A woman may say that she had sex forced upon her and protested at the time, and a jury can believe her. However, if the defendant says, "I'm sorry, I honestly believed that she was consenting," it is difficult to gainsay that and convict him. There is therefore a situation in which women have had sex forced on them, but no one is convicted. The current rule—I do not think that this is putting it too strongly—licenses the assumption of consent by the defendant, irrespective of the complainant's wishes. She, of course, has a duty to make herself clear, but in those cases she will have done so. He, however, has a duty to ascertain that the sex is mutually consensual, and the current rule does not impose such a duty on a man.
	If the Bill is enacted with clause 1 in its current form—I compliment those who have had input in refining it and making it better in the other place—when the issue at court is whether the defendant believed that the complainant was consenting, he can still say that he did, but will now have to show that that was a reasonable belief. That will have an impact that goes beyond court cases—it will become a normative or standard requirement. Men who get to know about the rule will understand that they have to behave reasonably when involved in sexual relations and must ascertain properly that the woman is consenting. I have to say that that is not much to ask.
	The structure of clause 1 is excellent because in assessing whether the defendant's belief is reasonable, all the circumstances have to be looked at, including a scrutiny of any steps that the defendant took there and then to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting or not. The requirement that the defendant is to be asked in court about the steps that he took to ascertain consent will have another excellent impact on the way in which cases run in court. It will diminish the admission of previous sexual history to support an honest belief in consent. At present, for example, someone can argue, "If my friend told me something about her and what she likes, or if I heard it on the grapevine, that might have influenced me to believe that she would consent, and helped to close my mind to what was actually resistance."
	Imposing a slight duty on the man to behave reasonably, and making him aware that he will be asked about the steps that he took, even though he believed that consent had been given, to check that his state of mind was correct at the time, ought to focus the court's attention much more on the situation in the bed, on the floor or wherever. What he heard about the complainant's previous sexual history and the way in which she might react if he approached her will be far less central to his state of mind at the time and, in many cases, will be so remote from the here and now that it will not be relevant enough to be admitted at all.
	Clause 1, buttressed by clauses 76 and 75, is a good move in three ways. It has the two advantages at court that I have explained—first, it will require reasonableness, and secondly, it will diminish the admissibility of previous sexual history. Thirdly, it will establish a norm for the way in which men are expected to behave. Because it has that normative quality, it is important to publicise the change in the law if and when it occurs so that, in all fairness, men know that there is a further test and so that women are encouraged to appreciate that they have the extra protection provided by those first two changes.
	Two years ago, I had a conversation with the then director of the major female equality pressure group in the UK and with a famous woman broadcaster—virtually a household name. We discussed whether we would report a rape done by somebody we knew. We were not convinced that it would be worth the cross-examination, perhaps about a fictional previous sexual history; the possibility of the man saying, "Okay, she didn't consent, she was protesting, but I thought she did consent," and being acquitted; or the thought of having to go it alone, perhaps with a disbelieving police force and a disinterested Crown Prosecution Service, facing the near-inevitability of an ultimate acquittal. We all agreed that if we had been raped by somebody we knew, we would not report it—middle-class, middle-aged, confident women like us. How much worse is the predicament for the less articulate, less confident, less secure younger women who live on the poorer estates—for example, in my constituency, Redcar?
	When clauses 1, 75 and 76 come through, and the other good steps that I mentioned which the Government have taken start to bear fruit, and in particular if they drive forward the policy of rape support embodied by sexual assault referral centres, I think that reflecting on the position, I and my two friends would change our minds. We would say that it would now be worth making a report. It would not only change our minds but it would enable us to encourage those less advantaged women to do the same.
	For those reasons, I believe my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has greatly taken forward the cause of justice for women through these changes to rape law. In fact, I can go a little further. For the women campaigners who have campaigned for the 27 years since 1976 to reverse the ruling in the case of R v. Morgan that allowed an honest, even if unreasonable, belief in consent to be a defence, there is a real possibility that this Home Secretary will become a feminist hero.

Sandra Gidley: I add my congratulations to the Government. The Bill is welcome and, in many ways, overdue. It spent an inordinate amount of time in the other place. I am told that there is nothing that peers like quite so much as talking about sex. Clearly, that must be true, as they have been talking about it for six months. A peer recently said to me, "Don't hang on to the Bill for too long. We want it back."
	That diligence has resulted in a Bill that is much better than the original. The improved wording of the clause on rape, which has been more than adequately described by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), will hopefully be more workable and result in more convictions. I was struck by the fact that the hon. and learned Lady said there was a 45 per cent. conviction rate. I do not know whether we have been reading different figures, but I read recently in a briefing by the Rape Crisis Federation that the conviction rate had dropped to 7 per cent. That may be from a different baseline.

Vera Baird: In respect of the cases that get to court, there is a 45 per cent. conviction rate. In respect of those where a complaint is made, there is only a 7 per cent. conviction rate, because there is a massive drop-out on the way to court.

Sandra Gidley: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that clarification. I assumed that that was the explanation, but the briefing that I read did not make it clear.
	People are happier with the rape laws as they now stand. The naturists in my constituency are happier. Some of the sillier initial suggestions, such as making it illegal to advise the under-16s on matters sexual, have long since disappeared. That does not mean that we in the Commons have an easy ride. There are still a number of aspects of the Bill that give cause for concern, and a number of small matters that seem to have been overlooked.
	My main concerns about the Bill as it stands can be loosely summed up as relating to issues involving exploitation. Trafficking, offences against persons with a mental disorder or learning disability, and child sex offences all involve some measure of exploitation. If we as a society and as a Parliament fail to protect the weak and the vulnerable, we fail in our most important duty.
	I share the sentiments of those in the Chamber today who seem to believe, as I do, that above all, we must protect our children. When I use the phrase "our children," I do not solely mean British children, as I include those who are victims of horrors such as sex tourism and trafficking. None the less, I should like to start off closer to home and examine the Bill as it affects many children this country. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that I also start from the premise that it is completely unacceptable for an adult to sexually abuse a child, particularly if they are placed in a position of trust. It follows that it is absolutely right that the Bill deals with such behaviour.
	I share the concerns of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who find it deeply worrying that the Bill appears to criminalise the sexual activities of all young people, regardless of whether they take place with or without consent. In my kinder moments, I wondered whether I was seeing the dawn of a new age of joined-up government and whether such provision was the Home Office's contribution to reducing the teenage pregnancy rate by saying "It's simple: let's make it illegal."
	The Health Committee's recent report on sexual health, however, highlighted some of the problems in the sex education that our young people currently receive and recommended that greater emphasis be given to relationships and sex education so that young people feel more comfortable and can discuss their sexuality in a non-sniggering manner. Sadly, I must conclude that we have not seen an example of joined-up government, as the measures in the Bill will serve only to reinforce the attitude that teenage kissing and experimental petting are somehow smutty and dirty and should be done behind the bike sheds—a place that has been mentioned already—almost as an underground activity.
	Not all adults are comfortable with the idea that teenagers are sexually active, but we need to reflect on what is happening out there in the real world and ensure that our laws do not attract ridicule. The matter definitely needs careful review in Committee. Indeed, I thought that that was the case even before the magnum of champagne was offered. What we do not need is a law that cannot be enforced.
	Other European countries have tackled the problem by decriminalising sexual activity between under-16s. I am not suggesting that we should necessarily take that route, as I am not convinced that it is the right way forward. Finland, for example, has taken a different approach. Sex with under-16s is not deemed an offence in Finland if there is no great difference between the ages or mental and physical maturity of the persons involved. That strikes me as the beginning of a pragmatic approach that we might consider. Criminalising consensual activity between adolescents devalues the suffering of genuine victims of child abuse. I strongly believe that we have to find some way of differentiating the two issues. The problem was acknowledged in Committee in the House of Lords, as it has been today. I think that the Government are well aware of it and I like also to think that they genuinely do not know quite how to take it forward in a practical way.
	I was slightly alarmed that, on Third Reading, the Minister in another place proposed safeguards against inappropriate prosecution by suggesting that guidance would be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Such guidance would be implemented by officials, who may have widely varying moral standpoints that will impact on their decisions. That does not seem fair to 15-year-olds throughout the country who are doing what 15-year-olds do naturally. I feel that we need to deal with that matter in the Bill.
	I turn now to situations in which the vulnerability of a child is exploited. In particular, I welcome the attempt to deal with sex abusers who use the internet to groom. That issue has been more than adequately dealt with today and I shall not repeat what has been said; there is a huge amount of agreement in the House. I want to concentrate on an area of particular difficulty. While I call for common-sense measures to deal with the problem of consensual teenage activity, I believe that we have to admit that there is a darker side to life and that a number of child sex offences are committed by children and young people. Research shows that 25 to 40 per cent. of all alleged sexual abuse involves young perpetrators. Of 6,400 people cautioned for, or found guilty of, a sexual offence, 23 per cent. were aged between 10 and 21. It has been estimated that in 1994 more than 10,000 children were sexually abused by another child or young person. It is not a small problem, and we need the courage to tackle it. The law needs to protect innocent children from abuse, whatever the age of the abuser. We firmly believe, moreover, that abusers who are children cannot be dealt with in the same way as abusers who are adults. We recommend a child-centred approach to tackling the problem of young abusers, then rehabilitating them.
	As a society, we must recognise first and foremost that children and young people are still developing both physically and emotionally. Children who abuse often do so because they have themselves experienced a form of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. It is a complex picture. We owe such children help and support, which must be of a specialist nature. It is inappropriate to treat those damaged children in the same way as adult sex offenders, because often they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. That said, some children and young people do pose a risk to others, and their behaviour requires careful management.
	In 2002, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children produced a report called "I think I might need some help with this problem", which concluded that Government policy regarding that group of children remained unclear and that services remained sporadic and largely unco-ordinated. In 1998, a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons concluded that fewer than half of the 10 probation services inspected made any provision for juveniles displaying signs of sexually harmful behaviour.
	We are in desperate need of a strategy and the resources to achieve it. It is disappointing that the Bill does not explicitly provide that assessment and treatment should be available on a statutory basis as soon as children and young people come to the attention of local authorities. We believe that assessment should be on a case-by-case basis—a one-size-fits-all policy is not appropriate, because the range of children and their problems is wide and complex—and that it should go hand in hand with an assessment of the child's need for protection. Those measures would ensure that the possibility that the child may himself have been the victim of abuse is taken into account and that the necessary counselling and support is provided. We shall table amendments to that effect in Committee.
	Another area of concern, which I share with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who is no longer here, is the sex offenders register, covered in clauses 81 to 93. It may not be right to force young people to register in the same way as adults, even though there is a reduced notification period; we must think carefully about whether that is the best approach. There is a strong case to be made for putting the child or young person at the heart of the process and dealing with them individually. If the child has been abused, that must be taken into account before any decision is made as to whether to put him on to a sex offenders register, which will have a huge impact on a very young life in terms of family, friends, and education or work. It is not a measure to be taken lightly: it should be based on recommendations by trained professionals, who are the best people to decide whether the young person is a risk to the community. As the Government have been unwilling to address those issues in the Lords, we intend to raise them in Committee.
	Many hon. Members mentioned trafficking. I pay tribute to UNICEF for its effective lobbying campaign on that subject. Again, I shall stress the most important points. There should be a distinction between adult and child trafficking. Most victims are 13 to 17, and that highlights the need for strong measures to deal with the problem. It should not be tackled in a magistrates court.
	The Government are obliged under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child to protect the rights of vulnerable children. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) listed all the protocols that reinforce that point and I shall not try hon. Members' patience by repeating them. The United Kingdom police stated that there are two main obstacles to prosecuting traffickers. First, there is a lack of a specific law—the Bill deals with that problem. Secondly, there is a lack of victims who are willing to testify. That obstacle will remain unless we change the Bill. The Government have a moral duty to protect innocent children but that is absent from the face of the Bill. Earlier, it was said that the four countries that provided periods of reflection and introduced strong measures to deal with the problem had the highest conviction rates. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in his winding-up speech the way in which the UK intends to match the conviction rates of countries such as the United States, Italy and Sweden if we do not provide the necessary period of reflection. Several pilots show that the Government have some commitment to tackling the problem. However, it would be useful if they could put on record their commitment to assessing the pilots and the subsequent implementation of any schemes as a result of recommendations from them.
	We also support the case that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made for victim protection at the same time as the period of reflection, during which problems can arise. It takes time for the child to develop a relationship of trust with authorities, such as the police. Without time for trust to develop, it is impossible to get a prosecution. Even worse, children who are sent straight back to the country of origin are much more likely to fall into the hands of traffickers. To remain oblivious to that and claim that it is not our problem is a dereliction of duty.
	I was delighted that the Government have already tabled amendments to deal with the problem of sex tourism. They would close the loophole that previously meant that those on the sex offenders' register who went on holiday for less than eight days could disappear to countries such as Thailand and Cambodia and abuse children there. I have visited Cambodia and witnessed the extent of the problem, and the amendments are welcome.
	Abuse is also a severe problem for those with a mental disorder or learning disability. Clauses 32 to 46 deal with such offences. The charity Turning Point says that 1,400 people with learning disabilities are victims of abuse every year. Any law must be carefully drafted because it must recognise that people in that category have as much right as others to engage in sexual activity. However, that must be counterbalanced with measures to guard against exploitation by those in positions of trust and authority.
	The charity Sense, which deals with deafblind people, raised some especially sensitive issues. It makes the point in a paper that it is difficult to provide sex education for a deafblind person with some form of learning disability without touch, which is fundamental. Sometimes there is no alternative. Are we to deny people in that category the benefits of some sort of sex education? The message must also be given to people such as these that they need to be able to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. It is beyond my skills to say how we should deal with this in practice, but it is worth keeping the issue in the back of our minds as the Bill progresses.
	Some progress was made in the other place, but a number of issues relating to people with a learning disability remain outstanding. Of most concern are those relating to the capacity to consent. It is a puzzle to me and to many who work in the field that clause 32 uses the words
	"unable to refuse because of a mental disorder or learning disability",
	while the remainder of the Bill almost universally refers to "consent". To my mind, there is a fundamental difference between the two concepts, and I would welcome an explanation of the Government's thinking on this. Why cannot the wording in clause 32(1)(c) be altered to
	"B is unable to consent because of a mental disorder or learning disability"?
	We need to be consistent with the provisions relating to rape at the beginning of the Bill.
	One interpretation of this matter is that the current definition risks people with learning disabilities being seen as never able to consent to sexual activity. I am sure that the Government have not done this intentionally, and that they will seek to put the matter straight in Committee. It would also be useful if the Government were to issue a code of practice, alongside the Bill, on the provision of sex education and therapy to people with learning disabilities. This would protect care workers who legitimately provide such services.
	My other major concern surrounds the Bill's provisions relating to care workers. We wholeheartedly support the thrust of the amendments on those issues, but we are concerned that the definition of a care worker includes the phrase
	"likely to"—
	have—
	"regular face to face contact".
	This could cause two problems. First, there is no provision for dealing with a care worker who abuses as a result of a one-off contact. The most obvious example that springs to mind is the use of agency staff, because many places are understaffed and need to resort to the use of agency staff from time to time. There need to be checks and balances in place in those circumstances. The Government have recognised this, but I am not sure what they plan to do about it. The second scenario is one in which abuse could be repeated on several occasions but over a long period of time, making such contact difficult to define as "regular". I flag this up as another issue that needs to be discussed in Committee.
	I had hoped to complete the theme of protecting the vulnerable by mentioning rape, but the subject has already been dealt with. I have little to add to the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar , and I would like to give everyone else time to speak. We have here a Bill that could command support in most parts of the House. The Lords have performed a huge task in successfully making it better, and I look forward to working with other hon. Members to make it better still.

Stephen Hesford: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It might have been suggested that I, along with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and others, should expand our speeches ever so slightly. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister also realises how much time we have available. I welcome that, because my hon. Friend—to whose winding-up speech I look forward—will have as much time as he needs in which to address all the very relevant points that have been raised throughout what has so far been a very good debate.
	Before I move to the main part of my speech, I would like to reflect on what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said about the support mechanisms that exist to assist the victims of rape in coming forward. If we cannot actually get them to come forward, we want them to be able to deal with the problem and feel able to come forward to receive treatment, counselling or the like. I did not originally intend to speak about that aspect of the Bill but having heard what my hon. and learned Friend said, I realise that it is a key issue. The Bill does not deal with it directly, but without the additional features referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend, some of the important measures that we pass may not be as effective as we want them to be.
	I am a patron to the Zero centre, a rape crisis centre in my own constituency, so I well recognise the issues about which my hon. and learned Friend spoke. In my short time in the House, that centre—together with a sister organisation that deals with similar issues of family distress, rape and child abuse—has on several occasions been under threat from lack of funding. I am pleased to say that lottery funding has helped the Zero centre to get on its current firm footing. I greatly commend the work of such centres throughout the country. I also echo what my hon. and learned Friend said about the need for co-ordination between such centres so that women can have a one-stop shop for reporting incidents, medical assistance, counselling and so forth whenever they need them.
	I greatly welcome the Bill. It has rightly been said by my hon. Friends that it has been a long time in the formulation. From my knowledge of the process, it started in the previous Parliament. I took part in a series of seminars at an early stage in the consultation process before the last election. I shall say more about definitions in due course, but at those seminars I was not filled with hope that we would reach this stage, mainly because the legal profession highlighted the major problems associated with redefining the law of rape.
	The fact that we have reached this point from that small beginning is a measure of the determination and commitment on the Labour Benches—through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, his predecessor and current Ministers—to keep the process in train. I have noticed various points during the past three or four years at which we could have run out of steam. That should make us reflect. As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, 1976—20-odd years ago—was the second to last time that rape law was examined in a major way. Why? The key reason is that it is such a difficult area in which to legislate. That makes the present legislation even more welcome.
	The Bill is in line with the Government's whole approach to legal and constitutional affairs. It sits well with our willingness to put victims first. Like other Members, I have had the pleasure of speaking to several such Bills, on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 put victims first in trying to get at the drug dealers when existing legislation was not as effective as it should have been. The Courts Bill 2002 is about modernising the courts to make them work better for victims. The Criminal Justice Bill 2002 is still going through Parliament, but will hopefully soon become an Act. There has been a series of measures and it is no coincidence that, under this Government, the commitment in the Home Office and the new Department for Constitutional Affairs to ensure that the court system works for victims is there for all to see. I want to talk about a particular set of victims, as my remarks are addressed specifically to part 1 of the Bill.
	A series of seminars in 1999 led to the report entitled "Setting the Boundaries". What are the modern boundaries in sexual activity? Some activities are private, or involve consenting adults or people of the same sex, but the problems of definition are difficult to resolve. I am delighted to say that a measure of agreement has been reached.
	I commend the back-room staff at the Home Office for the way in which they have brought this Bill and other measures forward. Had the process been handled less well, the degree of agreement evident in today's debate would not have been achieved.
	The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out where problems could have been encountered had the Bill not been as successful as it is—helped, of course, by the changes and amendments passed in another place. Even so, the hon. Lady made several criticisms of the Bill. I consider some of them to be misplaced and, if I am lucky enough to be a member of the Standing Committee, I hope that she and I will be able to debate the matter. That just goes to show how much hard work it took to achieve the degree of agreement about the Bill that has been secured.
	That hard work resulted in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", which was extremely well received. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned how many briefings hon. Members have received, and that shows how much interest the proposed reforms have aroused. The briefing from the Rape Crisis Federation caught my eye, as it deals with the idea of the female victim. If the definition of rape in clause 1 was badly wrong, that organisation would be the first to point it out. An inaccurate definition would compound the problem with the old law that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar detailed. I shall return to that matter shortly.
	In my experience of dealing with sexual offences and serious crime before I was elected to the House I have seen juries deliberate on rape cases: I have seen how they react to rape victims and I have witnessed at first hand how problems that have been described in the debate play out in a court.
	There is no doubt that the Bill is overdue. It is worth repeating, as has been noted already, that the change proposed in clause 1 introduces the idea that the belief is reasonable. I say that because of the awfully low conviction rate. Whether it is the 7 per cent. of cases reported, or the 45 per cent. that go to court, as against well over 50 per cent. for other offences—I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said that it was 70 per cent.—that rate is atrocious.
	It is atrocious for a number of reasons. It is a denial of civil liberties to that class of victim. One reason why there is a high drop-out rate is that the victims have no confidence in the system, which cannot be right. It cannot be right for us to think, as practitioners, which I used to be, or as legislators, that there is a class of victim that has no connection with or belief in the process that would secure justice for them in what is one of the most serious offences, which is a grave violation of a human being.
	I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said that it might be normative to make people reflect on their actions. I hope that that may be the case. I want to describe how it may impact on the practitioners in criminal courts and how they approach rape cases—how a judge and jury may better understand a rape trial.
	On consent, one reason why there was a low conviction rate was that if that was the issue at trial, and given, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, which I believe to be correct, added pressure is placed on the jury. How do they differentiate between the case in question and the usual dealings between the two people. And how does the victim do that? Even a wife must be able to say no. In the past 10 years, the law has changed and a wife can now say no. We no longer have the Victorian attitude that, as part of the marriage contract, the wife has to say yes in every circumstance. In the sort of rape case that usually comes to court, involving people who know each other, the reasonableness test is classically designed to make the jury reflect much more strongly on the circumstances and the acts under review.
	I have not been involved in many rape cases. The cases that I witnessed that resulted in acquittal brought to mind what older practitioners told me about murder trials when we had capital punishment, when a number of murder cases resulted in acquittals simply because if the jury said, "Guilty", the defendant would hang—it is not an exact parallel, but I hope the House will find it useful to reflect on it. In many cases, the verdict was manslaughter simply because the jury could not face the consequences of a guilty verdict.
	In rape cases, there seems to be a sort of parallel. Juries would take the easy way out. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who seems to be agreeing. It was the easy way out because of the way in which the law was framed—it might have been an unreasonable belief, but it was one that was honestly held. A more objective standpoint might have brought a different result.
	It may be instructive for the House if I depart from my usual practice and remind hon. Members of a situation that illustrates the difficulty of securing a conviction under the law as it was. Again, I am grateful to the Rape Crisis Federation for its briefing. I hope that that organisation will forgive me for pointing out that one of the two case studies in the briefing was much less useful and convincing than the other.
	In brief, the first case study concerned a 16-year-old girl whose mother heard her screaming in her bedroom. The mother found a man on top of her daughter having sex with her. The circumstances seemed to be that the girl met the man as she was coming home, worse the wear for drink. She could remember nothing about the evening. When the man was arrested, he initially denied meeting her but he was caught on closed-circuit television using his credit card, which linked him to the scene. He then came up with an amazing story, which the jury accepted. He said that he had bumped into the girl, who agreed to have sex with him later on the basis that he looked Italian. In his neck of the woods, it was well known among his mates that all girls said "yes" to a man who looked Italian.
	I see that some hon. Members are laughing, but it was no laughing matter for the distressed mother and daughter in that case. The case study offers an almost ridiculous example of how someone charged with rape in such circumstances can maintain an honest, even though unreasonable, belief. Under the new law, the jury would have been asked to deal with a different set of questions.
	The second element that I want to discuss is anonymity. I understand the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is not in his place. The Opposition have concerns about anonymity and they would support a version of clause 2, which, I understand, was inserted by Lord Ackner in the other place.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government will amend the provision so as to take the sting out of it, although removal would be my preference. I say that because if a form of anonymity applied to a serial rapist to the extent that the public had less access to the identity of that offender, it would hinder the prospect of other victims coming forward to say, "Yes, I had contact with that person and he did the same thing to me, but I thought I was the only one, so I didn't report it. Now that I know that other women are coming forward, I am emboldened". That would change the case, but such a situation would be much less likely if there were anonymity. If the House is determined to make conviction for rape easier in the right circumstances, removal of anonymity would be the right way forward. I support the Government in that.
	Finally, I want to turn to a slight amount of detail. In some senses, this has been mentioned before, but it is important and, again, if I serve on the Committee, we may return to it. I have not spoken about the important part of the Bill that deals with the protection of children. Some elements of the Bill are welcome, especially the new proposals on grooming and arranging or facilitating the commission of child sex offences
	"in any part of the world",
	but I want to be sure that we take a consistent line.
	I ask the Government, in advance of the debates in Committee, to reflect on the fact that clause 15, entitled "Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence", will apply only to offences under clauses 10 to 14, not to clauses 6 to 9, which relate to the very serious sex offences on children under 13. Clause 17, entitled "Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.", deals with the same kind of issue, but the offence under clause 17 is aimed at
	"an offence under this Part."
	So the offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming is aimed at offences under clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9, which relate to the very serious sexual offences, yet the offence of arranging or facilitating the commission of child sex offences, which is more serious in some ways, is treated differently.
	I shall give an illustration. In another branch of the law, it is often thought that theft is less serious than handling offences, which carry a greater maximum penalty because those offences often facilitate the theft—one is done for the other—and a parallel relationship is involved in arranging or facilitating the commission of a child offence: the arranging makes the offence more likely if someone engages in commercial activity of that type or something similar. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the effect of the Bill, given that, first, there will be no life imprisonment for the most serious offences and, secondly, they will not be fully covered.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues on introducing the Bill, which is in a usable form. It represents a major step forward in treating a special class of victim and in reclaiming civil liberties for females in a number of different circumstances. They can go out and have a drink if they want, without being accused of over-dressing outrageously or whatever, and people in domestic circumstances can say no if they want. The Bill will assist both classes of potential victim, and I commend it to the House.

David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) in the debate. As a former barrister, he brings great experience to this issue. It is always difficult speaking at the end of a long debate, such as this. I went home the other night and told my wife that I had just made a speech in the House of Commons and she said, "What was the point of that? I expect you sat there for six hours and then made all the same points that everyone had made before you"—very perceptive. I shall try to avoid doing that tonight.
	Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. It is right to codify and bring together the law on sexual offences. It is right to update the law, as the Bill does in a range of ways. It is also right to introduce the new offences that many hon. Members have spoken about, not least to keep pace with technology. Much has been made of the offence of internet grooming, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is not back in his place, spoke about it powerfully. The police have told me that they need changes in the law to keep up to date. Everyone in the House is clear that paedophiles, rapists, those dealing in child pornography and traffickers need to be hunted down and punished, and this Bill helps us to do that, which is why, I am sure, it has all-party support.
	As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I also welcome the way in which the Government have handled this Bill. They have listened at each stage: they listened in the other place, and they listened to the Select Committee report. We had some difficulty, as we were trying to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny while the Bill was in the other place, and we often found that we were dealing with a moving target—we would come up with a powerful argument, but it would not matter any more because the provisions had been amended. We came to many of the same conclusions as the other place.
	It is also a difficult area because we are dealing with awful crimes, and we are also dealing with sensitive areas in which we must choose our words carefully. The Home Secretary gave us some good examples of that from the debate in the other place. It is worth saying, however, that what we are trying to do is criminalise that which is wrong. I hope, however, that the Government are also trying not to draw into the criminal law those things that are harmless but of which we may disapprove. One or two problems may still exist, such as those relating to clause 14 and 15-year-olds having a snog. I am not claiming that I am going to win the bottle of champagne, but it is nice to know that, under new Labour, it is a bottle of champagne and not a pint of lager, so we can all work on it.
	The Home Affairs Committee looked in detail at three areas that I want to mention. The first issue was sexual activity in public, which was dealt with in clause 74 of the old Bill, but that clause has now gone. That decision was absolutely right, as the clause was far too widely drawn. It was in danger of making the law look an ass, as the Home Secretary said earlier. I hope that it will not be reintroduced to deal with the problem that the Government perceive in relation to sexual activity in public lavatories. It is worth remembering why the clause on sexual activity in public was included in the first place: it was an honest attempt to be comprehensive and gender-neutral. What happened was that we found that it would end up criminalising a couple of people in a car, halfway up a mountainside, having a fumble on the back seat. That was clearly the wrong result and that is why the Government rightly dropped the clause. I hope that they will not reintroduce it in any form to deal with the other problems that they are having, as harmless activities should not be criminalised
	The second area was the question of exposure and the concerns of British Naturism. I suggested that we bring in representatives of British Naturism to present evidence and answer questions, which it did extremely well. It had real concerns about the Bill, which have been partly dealt with, about which I want to make a few comments. British Naturism says that it has 20,000 members and that 2.5 million people in this country take part in naturist activities. While I was listening to the debate, I worked out that that is 5 per cent., which, if the House is representative, must include at least 30 Members. I can only think of one or two who take part—[Hon. Members: "Name them."] I will not go that far, as I am just starting out. Calm down, as Michael Winner once said.
	This matter was dealt with by clause 70, now clause 68. The old test as to whether one was guilty of this criminal offence was knowingly exposing oneself and being reckless as to whether that would cause offence, which was wrong. The naturists rightly said that sometimes one cannot know whether one is being reckless, as one cannot know the state of mind of the other person. In my constituency, people sometimes go punting along the Cherwell, and—for those who know Oxford well—when they reach Parsons' Pleasure, they sometimes find a few dons in a state of more than partial undress.

Humfrey Malins: I remember it well.

David Cameron: I am sure that my hon. Friend was in the punt and not on the bank. The point is that we should not criminalise that sort of behaviour. In addition, the test as it was drawn would have caught someone who was changing their swimming trunks on the beach and who tripped over—they would be reckless as to whether someone might see them and be caused offence.
	The new test in the Bill is better. First, it is that one intentionally exposes oneself, and, secondly, that one knows or intends that someone will see and will be caused alarm or distress. That sounds much more sensible, and the naturists, including those from my constituency who have written to me, should be more relaxed about it. However, they are still not happy and I hope that the Minister will listen to them.
	The naturists are still making two points. One is reasonable, the other less so. The less reasonable point is their request that there should still be a reference to sexual gratification—that is, that it should be a crime for someone to expose themselves only if they do so for that purpose. That presents a problem, because surely there are cases involving deliberate exposure to cause offence, but no sexual motive. That probably should be a criminal activity, so the suggestion is not helpful.
	The second point has more merit. The naturists would like the test of a reasonable person to be introduced to the clause on exposure—that is, a reasonable person would be caused offence by seeing someone without any clothes on. The Criminal Bar Association gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee—I refer the Minister to it—and it seemed to think that approach sensible.
	The Select Committee sitting was a sketch writer's dream, as Members might imagine. I have referred to the point about British naturists all carrying passports saying that they are bona fide naturists, which caused the question to be asked, "Where do they keep their passports?" However, it came over loud and clear that those people are, on the whole, law abiding and not a nuisance. Their idea of fun might not be ours, but they have a right to be heard and listened to. I hope that the Minister will listen to their concerns in Committee, particularly the point that I have tried to put across.
	The third issue examined by the Committee was rape and consent. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an excellent speech. She is a real expert on this. I will not repeat the figures that she gave on the dreadful rape conviction rate, except to refer Members to page 7 of the Home Affairs Committee's excellent report, which sets out in detail the number of alleged rapes taking place each year and the number going to court. That will give the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) the full picture, but the figures are truly awful.
	It cannot be said too many times that this is a dreadful crime. That goes for date rape, stranger rape and any sort of rape. Also, it is absolutely right that the Government have a target for getting the conviction rate up. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, that should be partly about police work, partly about improving the record of the Crown Prosecution Service, partly about reforming how the courts work and partly about encouraging people to come forward.
	I am not going to get into the debate about anonymity, as I do not think that I agree with what the Select Committee said about it, but we must remember that what is right is anonymity for the person who has been raped. One of the reasons for introducing that was to encourage people to come forward, which is absolutely what we should keep.
	It is difficult to get to the bottom of the crime of rape and work out exactly what happened between two people, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, it has not become five times more difficult, yet that seems to be what has happened to the conviction rate—it has got five times as bad. In this context, we must ask ourselves how much a change in the law will address the problem of the conviction rate. I agree absolutely with the hon. and learned Lady about clause 1, which is the right way round the Morgan case. The clause says that reasonable belief in consent has to be shown. It will not be good enough to say, "I thought that she consented." The hon. and learned Lady was extremely clear about that.
	However, less clear are clauses 75 and 76, which set out the so-called rebuttable presumptions, when it is presumed that consent is not given. Clause 76 deals with conclusive presumptions, when it is conclusively proved that consent is not given. If that sounds complicated, that is because it is complicated. It was even more complicated before the House of Lords got at it.
	Our report says that
	"Clause 78"—
	as it then was—
	"was probably the most confusing provision in the whole Bill . . . the drafting was cumbersome and attracted much criticism from judges and lawyers."
	The measure has been improved but I hope that in Committee the Minister will think about the concern about complexity. Rebuttable presumptions, which are made when one presumes that consent was not given, will apply if violence was threatened or if a person was trapped in a room. One might say that it would be common sense to reverse such a presumption of consent. There are only two narrow conditions for conclusive presumptions. For example, if a rapist impersonated another person, the Bill states that it must be conclusively presumed that consent was not given.
	I am not a lawyer but I served on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill. When there were previous changes to criminal law such as to the rules of hearsay, to the rules on previous convictions and to the right to silence—a change made by the Conservative Government—the argument was made that the court should hear all the evidence and that a jury in an open court should be trusted to reach the right decision—we should let the dog see the rabbit, as it were. However, the rebuttable and conclusive presumptions about consent seem to write into law detailed provisions on how a judge should direct a jury.
	I showed the Bill to a criminal QC this morning, and he said that there is a danger of introducing complexity with no added value. I want the Minister to think about that when the Bill reaches Committee. Let us consider what would happen if Miss A, the victim in a rape case, said that someone impersonated another person.

Stephen Hesford: I am listening with care to what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I understand his perspective. From a practitioner's point of view—I tried to address that in my speech—if the presumptions work and are workable, more guilty pleas might well be entered for such cases because defendants would not be able to see a way out. That is why the provisions might come into their own.

David Cameron: I am about to address precisely that point. If the hon. Gentleman is right—I have an open mind about that—we should go ahead with the provisions as drafted. However, he should think about this possible situation. A victim could say, "My attacker impersonated someone else and then threatened to hit me," but the defendant could say, "I didn't impersonate someone else and I didn't threaten to hit her." Under the Bill, I understand that the judge would have to say to the jury, "If you believe that he was impersonating someone else, that is a conclusive presumption that no consent was given, and if you believe that he threatened to hit her, that is a presumption that on balance no consent was given. However, if you don't believe those things, you take a different view about consent." The provisions will make judges undertake a complicated process of explanation. What we really want is a jury to consider the case and decide that if the defendant impersonated another person, obviously there would be no consent. The provision is an attempt to write down common sense.
	Let me quote what Mr. Rook of the Criminal Bar Association said about the proposals:
	"What you are doing here is putting judges into strait-jackets, if you like, legislative strait-jackets, where they have to go through these various directions. So, in those circumstances, we feel that actually the importance of a clear summing-up may be lost because of having to go through these assumptions, shifting burdens of proof and so on."
	I admit that he was talking about the provisions before the Lords amended them, but the measures are still rather complex and the Minister must have a think about them.
	I do not think that I shall win a magnum of champagne from the Home Secretary, but attention must be given the Family Planning Association's question of whether the Bill will make kissing a crime for 15-year-olds—it is not actually just kissing that is at issue, I think that the Government would call it kissing plus. The problem is not clauses 10 to 13 but the relationship between clause 14 and clauses 10 and 11. I thought for a moment that the answer might lie in clause 14, which says:
	"A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 10 to 13 if he were aged 18."
	I thought the solution might be to ensure that that does not apply in the narrow circumstances of clauses 10(1)(c) and 11(1)(c) when both individuals duly consent. The problem is, however, that there is no concept of consent for under-18s. The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned what happens in other countries, and that may provide the answer. We could also consider the suggestion by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for a common-sense provision to state that nothing in the Bill should criminalise what a reasonable person would think of as normal behaviour.
	In sum, good law should march with common sense and we should criminalise what we know to be wrong. There is still a danger of trying to be so comprehensive that we sacrifice some common sense and draw things into criminal law that should lie outside it. I know that the Government are listening to our points. I hope that with their good will in Committee, we will ensure that the Bill becomes good law.

Annette Brooke: I, too, welcome the Bill. The intention to protect individual adults and children, and the updating of legislation to reflect today's society and attitudes, are to be applauded. As we have seen from today's news, it is essential to provide effective protection against crimes such as those stemming from the internet.
	We also owe an enormous debt to our noble Friends in the other place who spent so many hours scrutinising the Bill. On the whole, they have made it much more workable. The co-operation there shows us how Parliament can work well and our constructive debate augurs well for Committee. However, concerns do remain. In touching on a few of them, I shall try not to be repetitive.
	It is important that people across the spectrum of sexuality are treated equally under the law. What consenting adults do in private is their own affair. Children and people with mental disabilities should be dealt with appropriately. The human rights of victims and the accused should be protected. I want to restate our position on anonymity. I am convinced that we need to change the way in which people's lives can be destroyed by the media, even though a charge may never be made against them. That does not apply just to rape cases, but to child abuse cases and many other offences, too. There has to be a balance if someone whose identity is protected makes an allegation that just may be entirely false. If the accused is never charged, there is no possibility of the individual being publicly vindicated by an acquittal.
	It is right to revisit clause 2 in Committee and to consider the case of witnesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. I hope that the Government will not simply try to delete the clause, but instead will listen both to the conclusions of the Home Affairs Committee, which suggested that anonymity of the accused be protected for a limited time, between allegation and charge, and to those who conclude that there should be anonymity until the point of conviction. I hope that with a spirit of co-operation in Committee we will get the right balance between the need to protect potentially innocent suspects from damaging publicity and the wider public interest in retaining free and full reporting of criminal proceedings, including the benefits that that publicity can bring by encouraging other victims to come forward.
	Liberal Democrats welcome the measures to protect children from sexual abuse, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, there are concerns about how the Bill treats young people. Publication of the children at risk Green Paper before the debate would have helped our discussions. I hope that it will be published before we discuss the Bill in Committee so that we can use it as a basis on which to build.
	Although I welcome the approach to protecting children from abuse, there is a danger of criminalising children for innocent activities on their part. We know that sexual activity between the ages of 13 and 16 is fairly common. Surveys show that it is as high as 30 per cent. for males and 26 per cent. for females. We must accept life as it is today, although it is of course important that precautions are taken against unwanted pregnancy and advice on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is provided. Yes, we must be concerned if kissing and petting become a criminal offence.
	I was rather struck by the statement made by my noble Friend Baroness Walmsley in the other place when speaking on this issue. She said that there is a paradox: the Bill stipulates that a child under the age of 13 cannot understand the implications of sexual activity sufficiently to consent to it, but can simultaneously be expected to understand its implications sufficiently to be held criminally liable for it. There is much that we need to consider carefully and sensitively in Committee.
	Along with other Members, I hope that someone wins the champagne. It is essential that we try to amend the Bill to reflect the real lives and needs of young people today. We will badly let them down if we leave the Bill in a mess. We must ask ourselves whether it is necessary to criminalise normal adolescent behaviour in order to achieve our overall objectives.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey pointed out, between 25 and 40 per cent. of all sex offences against children are perpetrated by juveniles. I should like to reflect on a very sad case that was brought to my attention in one of my surgeries. I shall call the person David, although that is not his name. David's parents came to see me. About 17 years ago, it was identified that David was experiencing a difficult adolescence. Perhaps he and his parents were struggling to come to terms with his emerging homosexuality. The parents commissioned a psychiatric report, which concluded that there was no danger of him harming anybody. Subsequently, he was fined £10 for a minor sexual assault. At the age of 19, he was convicted of a serious offence against a 10-year old. Thirteen years on, he is still in prison in the north and has no hope of release.
	I was in frequent communication with the Minister's predecessor about the matter and I am sure that I will be so again. We must realise that lack of early identification and treatment led to tragedies for two families. That brought home to me the need to recognise that there are always two sides, and to work on the preventive side. Although not all words will be appropriate in the Bill, we must carry that culture with us.
	Many points have been made, but I am running out of time so I shall end by addressing the issue of trafficking. I, too, congratulate UNICEF and all those who have worked in the area. Just a short time ago, I was privileged to be taken to Moldova with UNICEF representatives. There, sadly but usefully, I learned a huge amount about the trafficking of children and women. I saw the problems of trying to overcome trafficking due to huge poverty and the tremendous push factor, the like of which I had never seen. Even when young women were returned to Moldova and helped in a refuge, they were still likely to return to trafficking if given the chance—just as we would buy a lottery ticket. What a tragedy.
	We in the western world—the destination countries—have a responsibility to bear. I therefore welcome the fact that there are clauses on trafficking in the Bill, and that so many hon. Members have ably put all the points that need putting on the issue. I hope that we can change the approach to the problem and try to do something about it. The way in which UNICEF has raised awareness of the issue must be applauded, as must the Robbie Williams film and so much more.
	So much can be said and we have an awful lot to do in Committee, but overall I welcome the Bill and look forward to the careful consideration of the detail.

Humfrey Malins: This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate, with helpful and constructive contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill, which is a thoughtful, wide-ranging and coherent piece of law in the making. We all agree that it left the other place a much better Bill than when it arrived there. Credit for that is due in part to the Government—their approach has been helpful and constructive throughout the passage of the Bill—but also to peers in the other place. I wish to mention in particular my noble Friend Baroness Noakes, who took a thoughtful and eminently sensible approach to controversial issues in the Bill. She, like many other Members of the Lords, offered wise and reasonable arguments and amendments. The House owes her and the other place a debt of gratitude. It also owes a debt of gratitude to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has done on the latter Committee, including his work on this issue.
	We have had a good debate, with contributions from Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who have experience in the field, both tackled the issue of traffickers and unaccompanied children, and referred to the vulnerability of young persons and their exploitation. Their contributions were helpful for the House, as indeed was the contribution of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who made a speech about similar issues.
	We need to revise and reform the law on sexual offences, much of which was made in a different era when attitudes towards sex and personal relationships were very different. The world is also very different, especially in terms of travel and technology. However, having accepted the need to change the law, we must accept that the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system, which were right in the past, continue to be valid today. Any reform must have regard to those principles.
	I shall touch on a few issues on which further debate and perhaps amendment is needed in Committee. Before I do so, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for his contribution. He talked about sexual offences against children and paedophile activity on the internet. The taskforce greatly appreciated everything that he said and contributed to its work, and we look forward to his expert help as the Bill progresses through Committee. Before leaving the issue of trafficking, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) for his powerful speech. He, too, referred to the significance of the issue, rightly praised UNICEF and spoke about the importance of training immigration officials.
	Clause 1 is a vital provision, and deals with the issue of rape, that most grievous offence. I very much agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who talked about the vital need for support for victims in this area of law and practice simply to enable more cases to come to fruition, so to speak. She was right to stress the importance of that issue, and spoke, in my respectful view, very helpfully indeed about the law on consent generally, on changes in society, and on the difficulties that we face in relation to that. She rightly referred to the Morgan case, which tells us that in a rape trial the defendant's subjective belief that the victim consented to sexual intercourse affords him a defence, even if he has no reasonable grounds for that belief, and pointed out problems arising from that.
	The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), who is a barrister by background, also referred to the matter, which has been troublesome. The Bill brings before the House a change for the better—an understandable change. What was first suggested in the other place was not so good, but as the Bill has progressed, we have reached a stage where, even if we do not find clause 1 entirely satisfactory, we know that we are on the right lines, and we can discuss the clause constructively in Committee.
	I wonder whether the new reasonableness test can be improved. Concern has been expressed by a number of knowledgeable groups, including the Bar Council, that the new test may not let in for consideration the defendant's particular features—his characteristics including, for example, his youth or his mental health. We may need to examine that—[Interruption.] I may have said something wrong and I could be in serious trouble, but I will press on, as I shall not be barked down by the Home Secretary's dog.
	I come briefly to clauses 76 and 77 and the presumptions about the absence of belief in consent. It was pointed out in another place that there may be some gaps in the provision. It can be a little unwise to list circumstances giving rise to a particular situation, because inevitably one leaves out other circumstances that may be relevant. In the context of clauses 76 and 77, physical violence and the presumptions, we may have to consider in Committee the possibility of economic threat, which is sometimes as powerful as physical violence or more so—for example, a comment such as, "I'm not going to pay your rent any more unless . . ."—or other abuses of a relationship of power. That aspect merits sensible discussion, but I am pleased that round the House today there has been a spirit of constructive debate. There is a real prospect that we can take these matters forward.
	I shall make a general point about rape. I am conscious of time, and the need to enable the Minister to have proper time to respond to the debate. It is a sad fact of life that the drug that results in many rapes and on so many occasions when informed consent may be in doubt, and the drug that causes many instances of women's lives being damaged beyond repair, is alcohol. Sadly, heavy binge drinking, in the past associated with young men only, is rapidly becoming fashionable among young women. Increasing numbers of young people of both sexes drink regularly to excess and often have little or no memory of what went on the night before. That makes for difficulties for juries, who have to make judgments about situations that were alcohol-dominated and poorly recollected. It is an issue in life that troubles me considerably and of course brings much grief to many people.
	I understand the problem that clause 14 seeks to address, but is it the right way to do it? The clause, I think—I hope I will be corrected if I am wrong—makes criminals out of two 15-year-olds, both aware of each other's age, who with the consent of each other engage in sexual touching and no more than that. If they are guilty, they are liable to conviction on indictment to five years' imprisonment. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre expressed concern about that, as did the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. My hon. Friend also rightly expressed some of the concerns of naturists about another aspect of the Bill.
	What about clause 14? The Home Secretary was extremely helpful in his opening speech. In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), he may have said that he was considering a formulation and that no one would be prosecuted in the circumstances outlined by his hon. Friend. He said, in effect, that he came to the matter with good will, which I know he does, and that he is prepared to consider the issue. [Interruption.] I am prompted to remember that he also offered a magnum of champagne. If he adds a bottle of gin, I shall have the answer by 10 pm.

Chris Bryant: It is alcohol that is the problem.

Humfrey Malins: It is a problem among young drinkers. If I qualify as a young drinker then, as Clint Eastwood might say, "You've made my day."
	Clause 14 is troublesome. One must consider the increasing maturity of girls and the way in which young people experiment. One is tempted to be flippant, but I do not want to be. Does anybody remember the back row of the cinema, where 14 and 15-year-olds would have a little bit of fun falling well short of an activity that might be thought harmful? Such young people will face five years on indictment under the clause if they are taken to court. It is a shame that that is the case. Yes, we have some sort of duty to send messages to teenagers about how they behave and to say that having sex at too young an age is wrong, but youngsters are growing up and they will experiment.
	I am worried that if the clause were enforced, it would send an unhappy message to worried teenagers and parents. Even a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service or the police not to prosecute could be taken only after the child had already been traumatised by a series of questions from somebody, perhaps under caution. That is a tough experience to put a 15-year-old through. I feel unhappy about the clause, but I shall say no more at the moment except that we hope to return to the matter in Committee.
	I am bound to say that clause 10 also troubles me a little. It provides that somebody who is just over 18 commits an offence if he touches sexually a person under 16. I am a little troubled by an aspect of that provision. If a mature 15-year-old girl and an immature 18-year-old boy engage in some form of sexual touching, falling short of intercourse, with mutual consent, it is odd that they should be subject to a clause providing that the guilty person will be guilty of an offence that carries 14 years on indictment. There will be no prospect of being tried in a magistrates court—it is on indictment. We need to consider that provision, as the criminal law is not the best tool to deal with teenagers having consensual contact falling short of intercourse, which is part of growing up and experimentation.
	Time is against me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall move past three excellent pages of my speech and turn very briefly to the latter part of it. We all agree that abusing a position of trust for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification must be punished and taken seriously. It is right to punish such activities, as a position of trust must not be abused. A relevant parallel is theft, which is a criminal offence, but is heavily aggravated when it involves a breach or abuse of trust, as this offence should be.
	Let us take a look in Committee at the list of areas of abuse of trust. Let us consider what happens to the sports teachers in the summer holiday camps and the young man who leaves his school in the summer term aged 18 and goes back in the autumn term in his gap year, still aged 18, as a part-time games teacher and starts, when he is potentially in a position of trust, a relationship with a sixth-form girl whom he has known all his life but with whom he has not previously had a relationship. That is a small Committee point, but I believe that we would do well to consider it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield spoke about the anonymity of the defendant in rape cases, which is an important issue, as did the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) also made helpful remarks about the anonymity issue. Some, like the Bar Council, believe that the anonymity of the defendant should remain until conviction, rather than until charge. There are strong views on that and I understand that they have been expressed. It is a matter that is well worth considering further, and we shall do so in Committee.
	For my part, I think this has been an enjoyable and constructive debate. I look forward to the further passage of the Bill and thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Paul Goggins: I begin by thanking all hon. Members who contributed to this excellent debate. I am pleased with the level of agreement that we achieved, because a mature consensus is vital as we try to devise legislation that strikes a balance between the need to protect children and vulnerable adults and the aspiration, which we all share, to continue to live in a free and open society.
	In a powerful and generous speech, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to a number of matters that he hoped we would be able to discuss in some depth in Committee. He talked about the abuse of positions of trust, the need for a range of appropriate penalties, and the inclusion of visual images in the range of child pornography. I am sure that those and many other issues will be discussed; the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) added to the list. As regards the magnum of champagne, I propose that if we manage to crack the problem, we should share it among all members of the Committee.
	In a powerful speech, the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) urged those of us who will serve on the Committee to root our deliberations in the reality of abuse. The knowledge that he brought to bear will stand us in good stead if he, too, serves on the Committee.
	Sexual crime and the fear of sexual crime have a profound and damaging effect on the lives of individuals and communities, and it is the responsibility of Government to protect everyone in society from such crimes, especially those, such as children and persons with a mental disorder, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse. I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who spoke strongly in favour of exercising that responsibility.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) for highlighting the hard work and dedication of many people who worked behind the scenes on introducing the Bill—not only campaigners, Members of Parliament and Ministers, but hard-working officials.
	The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) reminded us of the important role that is played by Select Committees in the development of ideas and the framing of legislation; I thank him for the work that he and his colleagues have put in.
	We believe that the new framework of sexual offences, notification requirements and orders in the Bill will provide the protection that we need. Part 1 is a major piece of modernising law reform. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) reminded us that much of the existing law in relation to sex offences goes back to the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which was itself largely based on 19th-century legislation. The Bill represents a timely review and much-needed legislation. The current law does not reflect the major changes that have taken place in our society over the past 50 years, and it is widely considered to be inadequate and out of date. The Bill will modernise the law and provide an effective response to the new dangers that we face in today's world.
	Several hon. Members raised the issue of consent, which is central to establishing whether a sexual offence has taken place. It is vital that the law is crystal clear about what consent means and in what circumstances sexual activity is simply unacceptable. Our changes to the law on consent will provide juries with a clear framework within which to make fair and just decisions. It is not enough for a defendant to hold an honest belief that someone consented to sexual activity; the Bill makes it clear that that view must also, given all the circumstances, be reasonable.
	My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an intervention whether the rape drug would be included in the list of presumptions in clause 76. I confirm that we are considering that.
	The Rape Crisis Federation and the Campaign to End Rape have endorsed the Bill's aims and robustly defend it as a feasible and important advance for women in the justice system. I endorse the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar to the effect that legislation alone is not enough. We must do far more to develop support systems and ensure better investigation of rape cases and better case preparation. I was especially impressed by my hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the sexual assault referral centres, and I intend to visit one of them before we reach Committee stage. I was about to give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some news, but I believe that he already heard it before returning to the Chamber. It is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar described him as potentially a feminist hero.

David Blunkett: That is a first.

Paul Goggins: Indeed.
	Many hon. Members mentioned anonymity and my right hon. Friend made it clear that, in Committee, we intend to overturn clause 2, which grants the same right to anonymity to defendants as to complainants. Of course, we understand the distress that can be caused to people who are accused of a serious offence, especially when they are subsequently acquitted. Nevertheless, we have an open justice system and the fact that someone has been charged with a serious offence can sometimes encourage more victims to come forward.
	The disclosure of personal details before charge is especially worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) raised that issue. We are in discussion with the police and the newspaper industry about tightening up the existing guidelines on disclosing and reporting the names of people under investigation. Again, in a spirit of co-operation, we should be pleased to hear ideas from any hon. Members about the way in which to tighten the guidance further and make it effective.

Simon Hughes: We accept the work that the Government have done and are continuing to do. Does the Under-Secretary accept that there is genuine scepticism about whether guidelines will work, because they have not in the past, and that it may be necessary to have a stricter framework that would make it illegal to go public about prospective charges against people?

Paul Goggins: The issue has been widely discussed and has implications that go beyond the Bill. It is our job to ensure that the Bill works. In that spirit, we shall try to tighten up the guidelines in the way that I outlined.
	Overall, we profoundly hope that tightening the law on consent will deal with the justice gap whereby only 5.8 per cent. of reported rapes currently end in convictions. The Metropolitan police involved in Project Sapphire told us that they believe that the proposals on rape will enable us to secure more convictions and get more justice for victims.
	The Bill plugs several loopholes in existing law. For example, hon. Members may remember the case last year of an estate agent who managed to convince two young children to undress in front of him. One of the children told her parents what had happened and they went to the police. To everyone's consternation, no offence could be found with which to charge the man. Clause 11 therefore introduces a new offence of
	"Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity".
	It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.
	The Bill also deals with discrimination and removes from the law on sexual offences discrimination against homosexuals. Several hon. Members made that point. Some existing offences criminalise consensual sexual activity in private against men that would not be illegal between heterosexuals or women. I confirm that we are considering a system whereby those who engaged in consensual acts with 16 and 17-year-olds and have been convicted of buggery or indecency can be deregistered.
	The Bill ensures that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is treated equally by the law. The new offences will help to protect the public, especially those groups that are actively targeted for abuse, such as children and adults with learning disabilities.
	Paedophile grooming of children, especially online, has been mentioned by many hon. Members, and is an increasingly high-profile area of concern. We must be ready to respond to the new challenges that are posed by the advances in technology. That is why we are introducing the new offence of grooming in clause 17, which will make it an offence to use the internet to groom a child and then arrange to meet them with the intention of engaging in sexual activity. I can reconfirm that the penalty for this offence will be up to seven years' imprisonment.
	This new offence would have been relevant in a recent case involving a man who met two young girls online in an internet chat room, subsequently communicated with them by mobile phone, then met them and engaged them in a variety of sexual acts. Furthermore, although we do not know the full facts of the case of Shevaun Pennington, this is probably the right moment for me to add my comments to those of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on that case, and to reiterate our hopes for her safe return.
	The sexual offences review that preceded the drafting of the Bill heard disturbing evidence about the extent and nature of the targeted sexual abuse of people with a mental disorder or learning disability. I know that all hon. Members will be distressed to learn that research has estimated that the incidence of abuse among persons with learning disabilities is much higher than it is among the general population. There is much to suggest that those with a mental disorder are targeted for sexual abuse by offenders because the offenders believe that their victims will not be able to give credible evidence against them.
	Existing legislation offers inadequate redress when such people are sexually abused. First, current offences use demeaning and outdated language, requiring the prosecution to prove that the victim is a "defective". Furthermore, this offence carries a maximum penalty of only two years imprisonment. The Bill will provide additional protection for such people, while recognising the right of people with a learning disability to enjoy a full life, including a sexual life. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke powerfully on that issue, drawing on the experience of the daughter of a friend of his.
	Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, welcomed the steps that we are taking to strengthen measures to combat the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre spoke of the West Sussex safe house, and the good work that is being done there. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North spoke powerfully about the need for support for victims, and both she and the hon. Member for Tatton mentioned the need for time for reflection. We appreciate the principle behind the need for time for reflection, but we believe that having a set period might be too inflexible. We would prefer an approach that was tailored to an individual's needs.
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley is clearly very knowledgeable on these issues, and spoke to us about encryption. I hope that we shall have further opportunities to learn more about that in Committee. I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that clause 13 will cover causing a child to watch a sexual act, which will include looking at photographs. I hope that he will be encouraged to learn that we are considering extending this provision to cover other visual representations.
	Now we come to the kissing question, or, as we may come to refer to it in our further deliberations, the champagne challenge. Almost every hon. Member commented on this issue, and concerns were raised that the Bill would criminalise teenagers under 16 who, as part of their normal development, engage in kissing. That is not the intention of the Bill; nor will it be its effect in practice. Strictly speaking, sexual activity between under-16s is already illegal, because the age of consent is 16. It would be irrelevant that both people were under 16. There have, however, been no prosecutions simply for kissing; nor will there be in future. I would say to the hon. Member for Romsey that if we find no other way to deal with this question—if we do not win the magnum of champagne—we shall be able to trust the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that that intention is followed. The Bill will, however, ensure that, when one young teenager seeks to exploit or abuse another, we shall be able to act. The protection of children must come before all else.
	When sexual crimes occur, the law must provide justice for victims and penalties for perpetrators that reflect the seriousness of the harm caused. The Bill demonstrates our commitment to doing both, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 14th October 2003.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Joan Ryan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 140.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to motions 4 and 5.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.

Government Trading Funds

That the draft Land Registry Trading Fund (Extension and Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That—
	(1) at the sittings on Wednesday 16th and Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and
	(2) at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Hon. Members: Object. MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES: AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
	Motion made,
	That—
	(1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland';
	(2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales';
	(3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:
	(a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';
	(b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';
	(4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:
	(a) before item 1 insert
	
		
			  
			 '1 Constitutional Affairs Department for Constitutional Affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland) 11'; 
		
	
	(b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;
	(c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and
	(5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy

Julian Lewis: Reflex sympathetic dystrophy is an intense, nerve-based, pain-causing condition, which, if not identified early and given alleviating treatment, may become irreversible.
	Thus, the petition states:
	The petition of Miss Amy Crumpler, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy sufferer and some 1,800 others of like disposition declares that a medical recognition of Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy is urgently needed due to the lack of understanding and treatment of current fellow sufferers. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons publishes appropriate medical guidelines to be followed throughout the United Kingdom when both diagnosing and treating Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Zoe Evans

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition, which deals with a matter of great poignancy. Schoolgirl Zoe Evans from Warminster was murdered by her stepfather, Miles Evans, in 1997. A tariff has yet to be set for that offence. The petition has been organised by The Wiltshire Times.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of 627 Persons, mainly resident in West Wiltshire.
	Declares that a minimum prison sentence should be set for the killer of Zoe Evans at the earliest opportunity so that her family can finally have peace of mind.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons demands that the Home Secretary ensures that minimum sentences are set without further delay and that the case of Zoe Evans is considered expeditiously.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

RAF LYNEHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

James Gray: Before I say anything about the potential closure of RAF Lyneham, it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the airmen and airwomen of the base, who, in their Hercules planes, have played such a central role in almost every conflict of the past 60 years and in every humanitarian effort in which we have taken part during that time. They pride themselves on being the first in and the last out in every conflict. As recently as Operation Telic in Iraq, we have seen what superb work they do. We are proud to have them in Wiltshire. We like the Hercules flying over my constituency and we shall be disappointed and extremely sad to see them go when they are moved to Brize Norton, as the Under-Secretary of State has announced they will be.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his intention to announce last Friday the closure of the base. I reconfirm that it was not me who leaked that decision to the press. It became known the following morning, although it was already common knowledge at the base. Two weeks previously, when I attended the Classics on the Wing concert at the base, the Chief of the Air Staff, among others, talked about the likelihood of closure. I did not leak the information. I go to great lengths to respect the fact that decisions should be announced in this place and I am grateful to the Minister for that advance notice.
	It is rare for an event of the magnitude of the closing of a base such as RAF Lyneham to hit a single constituency. Some 700 directly employed civilians will lose their jobs. It is disappointing, incidentally, that the Minister's letter refers to only 250 job losses, then, in parenthesis, it refers to all those who are employed on contract. A total of 750 will lose their jobs, and 2,500 RAF jobs will go. Those people will not be moved to Brize Norton; there will be a 2,500 reduction in the net manpower of the RAF when Lyneham closes. Of course, a large number of support industries of every kind in the surrounding area will be affected. If all the people in those jobs are added together, plus their spouses and their families, about 10,000 people owe their livelihoods to RAF Lyneham, so the effect of the Minister's announcement should not be underestimated.
	We believe that what is involved is a £75 million contribution to the local economy and, that if not handled correctly, the closure of RAF Lyneham will be absolutely catastrophic, not only for the village of Lyneham itself, but for the surrounding towns: Wootton Bassett; Calne, which is the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram); Cirencester—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is here this evening; Chippenham, of course; and Malmesbury. People from all those surrounding towns depend to a significant extent on RAF Lyneham, so I very much welcome the opportunity provided by this Adjournment debate to begin to consider how to handle the announcement.
	I should say in passing that the people of those towns took comfort from the fact that the Prime Minister visited the base some time ago and that, subsequently, in answer to an oral question that I asked him about the future of the base on 7 May, he said:
	"I accept and understand the very important role that it has played in previous conflicts and, I have no doubt at all, will play in future conflicts, too."—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.]
	The people of Lyneham took great comfort from those remarks, which were made in this very Chamber. It now transpires that either the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about, or he chose deliberately to mislead the people of Lyneham. Either way round, it is pretty poor stuff.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to rephrase that.

James Gray: I will happily rephrase. The Prime Minister gave me an assurance—that is how I read what Hansard says—that Lyneham has a future in all future conflicts. If he was badly briefed and got it wrong, that is a matter for him. I have previously suggested raising in a point of order the question of whether the Prime Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, misled the House, and I suggest that he might like to come to the House to apologise personally for having done so. He has chosen not to do so, but it remains my view that while he said the base had a future, that is demonstrably not the case. I hope that you will accept, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the House; I merely suggest that he was extremely badly briefed in saying what he said. That is perhaps the most charitable interpretation that any of us can possibly put on it. The truth of the matter is that the base is to close, and the Minister has made that plain.
	We have previously engaged in a long debate about the future of Lyneham. We have argued about the basing of the A400M and whether or not it is sensible to have all our military transport eggs in one basket at RAF Brize Norton. I pay tribute to Sam Wright, Len Moore, Colin Quaiffe, and Councillors Allison Bucknell, Chris Wannell and Toby Sturgis, all of whom have fought a valiant campaign to save Lyneham. I also pay tribute to the 17,000 who signed a petition to that effect.
	We produced a learned dossier. I am pleased to say that it was an entirely original dossier; we thought it up entirely ourselves and spared no effort on it. We even thought that we had achieved prime ministerial support, but Treasury cuts prevail, as ever, and what will be will be. The Treasury has spoken: Lyneham must close. That is a possible catastrophe for my constituency, but the Minister has taken his decision.
	I should therefore like to take this opportunity to move from discussing whether or not the base should close. That is a disaster, a catastrophe and a huge strategic mistake in respect of the future defence of the realm, but it will happen, and I should like to say a few words about what we can do to mitigate the possible disaster for my constituency and to suggest ways in which the Ministry of Defence might like to help.
	First, I should like to clarify the time frame and the likely process of the closure. Will the Minister tell us in responding to the debate when the C-130Js will leave? In his letter, he says that that will happen in about seven years. Am I right in thinking that it will happen in about 2010? It would be useful if the Minister would confirm whether that is indeed the year when the C-130Js will leave Lyneham and go to Brize Norton.
	Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many C-130Ks will be left by then? Clearly, if only a handful were left—two or three, for example—there would be no purpose in keeping the base open after 2010. Who would want to keep a base open for two or three planes? It may even be beneficial to know what will happen when the Hercules have gone. We do not want a largely derelict base, left in the middle of my constituency for a lengthy period, with two or three planes on it. At what stage will the Minister consider the airbase to be unviable? Does that change depend on the in-service date of the A400M, which, to say the least, looks a little questionable, as it has so far not even been designed, far less started to be built? In that case, will the Minister accept that there is at least the possibility of some slippage in relation to the in-service date, and therefore in relation to the date on which Lyneham is vacated?
	We need to know all that, because the one thing about which we must be absolutely clear is that we cannot allow an extensive period of wind-down dereliction. When the RAF leaves, local people want a scheme for the economic regeneration of the base to be put in place immediately. We do not want, as I have seen at a number of other military bases in and around my area, a period of dereliction, often of a number of years, before something is put in place.
	Similarly, will the Minister say precisely what discussions he is having with other military users about potential use of the base? In particular, what discussions is he having with the Army? Is there a possibility that the Army may use the base? I suspect that local people would prefer further military usage in the future rather than conversion to other use, but we need to know with some degree of clarity what the likelihood is that it will be used for some other military purpose. In these days of manoeuvrability and the ready deployability of services, perhaps there is a role for Lyneham, with its runways, in a rapid reaction corps and as an Army base for deployment at short notice. Will the Minister let us know what he can about those discussions with the Army? Alternatively, are they largely paper discussions, in which case, again, it would be useful, from the point of view of local people, to be absolutely plain about whether there is some military purpose for the base?
	Leaving that on one side, it is important that we lose no time in coming up with and implementing an agreed vision of what we would like to see at Lyneham after the military have left. To that end, I have established a Lyneham taskforce, which met for the first time on Friday. It consists of councillors of all three political parties, as well as officers from Wiltshire county council, North Wiltshire district council, Lyneham parish council and Wootton Bassett town council, from the Wessex association of chambers of commerce and Wootton Bassett chamber of commerce, and from the Federation of Small Businesses, the regional development agency and the Swindon and Wiltshire economic partnership. It is therefore a very useful group of people, who have already got together to start to plan what we want to see on the base after the RAF goes. I hope that the Minister will confirm tonight that he would be content to see officers or officials from the base or from defence land taking part in that taskforce, too. Will he assure us that we can have the maximum amount of co-operation from the Ministry of Defence on matters such as looking at the level of contamination on the base, the buildings that will be left after the RAF leaves, and some of the economic appraisals made during the basing study of the last 12 months, some of which might be useful from the point of view of the taskforce?
	Similarly, the taskforce has already established the need to appoint a number of consultants to consider some of these aspects. Am I right in thinking that the Ministry of Defence, or perhaps—through the Minister's good offices—other Departments, might be ready to provide some support to the taskforce in carrying out some of those consultancy tasks? Will the Minister let us know what assistance and co-operation he will be ready to give to the people of the area in mitigating the worst effects of his announcement?
	That taskforce is getting together immediately to consider what we want Lyneham to look like by 2013. It is already clear that we do not want it to be a dormitory new town, although some housing, especially low-cost housing for local people, is perfectly possible. We must have decent employment land. In the area, in recent months, St. Ivel at Wootton Bassett has closed, with 240 job losses, Lucent has closed, with about 500 job losses. Dyson has moved 500 of its jobs offshore to Indonesia. And Vodafone in Swindon laid off 500 people last week. The area therefore has something of an employment crisis. We need high-quality manufacturing employers to come in, and it seems to me that making use of some parts of Lyneham might have a role to play in that. I hope that other parts of the base might return to agriculture or leisure use of one sort or another. Will the Minister reconfirm, however, that he is ready to support our efforts, perhaps with other Departments, to alleviate the worst effects of his announcement?
	While the Minister's announcement of a withdrawal from Lyneham is without question most unwelcome and a potential catastrophe for the local area, we should be grateful for clarification on two or three matters in particular this evening. First, what is his detailed estimate of the date by which the site will be vacant, which we need to know with some degree of clarity? Secondly, what discussions is he having with the Army or others about alternative military uses for the site, and will he sanction full co-operation by MOD officials with the Lyneham taskforce to come up with a suitable alternative vision for the base and surrounding areas?
	There is no doubt about the fact that this is a sad day for Lyneham, but let us be clear about the fact that, as the local constituency MP, I am determined to drive matters forward to secure the best possible outcome for my constituents and to try to turn a potential catastrophe into an opportunity. The economic and environmental circumstances of Lyneham in 2013 must be at least as good as they are today, and I hope that they will be better. I intend to make it my business to ensure that that is the case.

Ivor Caplin: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing the debate, as it gives me the opportunity to outline the reasons why the Government have taken the decision to relocate all air transport and air refuelling assets to RAF Brize Norton and, as a result, to close RAF Lyneham by 2012.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, I begin by acknowledging the valued role that RAF Lyneham has played over the years, most recently with its significant contribution to Operation Telic. I am glad of the opportunity to thank all the personnel and those who live around the station, whose support is much appreciated. I do not underestimate the part that the station has played in the past, and will indeed continue to play for some time to come.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that the strategic review work that considered the future role of RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St Mawgan, has taken over a year. Phase 1 of the review was to decide the optimum basing for the A400M, which will replace the C-130K fleet currently at RAF Lyneham. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in August 2002 my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced that RAF Brize Norton would be the home to that new fleet.
	Phase 2 of the review was to consider the longer-term future for all three stations. It is a result of that work that the Government announced in a written ministerial statement on 4 July that RAF Lyneham is to close. That means that the C-130J fleet will move to RAF Brize Norton in 2009. That was the first question that the hon. Gentleman posed. Under that plan, the whole C-130K fleet will remain at RAF Lyneham until it goes out of service in 2012. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the A400M, whose in-service date is expected to be 2011.
	We have consulted with the trade unions throughout the review, and a formal period of consultation is now well under way. The decision to close RAF Lyneham has not been taken lightly. The reason why the review team took as long as it did was to ensure that all issues had been fully considered. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the review was indeed comprehensive. He will recall that the review team briefed him and has taken part in meetings with local and regional authorities in order that all the issues could be identified and considered.
	I also know that, in coming to this decision, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has given full and proper consideration to all the factors involved. It is never easy to close any unit, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not make the best use of taxpayers' money to meet the defence requirement. To keep a station that is not required to meet the defence need would be a waste of public money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree.
	Of course, we are all quite naturally concerned about the impact on the people working at and in support of the station. The impact on personnel and the economy was not overlooked in the review—it was an important consideration. What the hon. Gentleman seems not to understand is the fact that with the new, manpower-efficient aircraft coming into service towards the end of the decade, there would in any case have been a reduction in the number of personnel required. Of the overall post reduction of 2,140 MOD personnel, 1,560 of those would have been lost with the arrival of the new aircraft. The net job losses relating to the closure of RAF Lyneham amount to about 580, of which 180 are MOD civilian posts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should keep the older, less efficient fleets just to maintain the current job numbers. As our experience of recent operations shows, air transport and air refuelling are key enablers of the successful deployment and use of our forces. The Government have put in place a modernisation plan for the air transport and air refuelling fleets that will ensure that we have more capability at lower annual cost.
	The Ministry of Defence always tries to do its best for its people, which is why we made the announcement as early as possible so that everyone had the maximum possible notice of the change. There is worry that the way in which the hon. Gentleman's press release was issued last week, and other factors, might have affected some of the staff. I understand that the result of his contact with local press was that staff might have heard of the decision through the media ahead of the formal announcement in the House. That has been the subject of correspondence between him and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I think that enough has been said on the issue.

James Gray: The Under-Secretary has made the most bizarre remark. Incidentally, it is disappointing that the Minister of State has not come to the Chamber today to face me and talk about the issue. I made it plain a moment ago that I made no comment at all to the press until precisely 11.30 on Friday 4 July, in Lyneham village hall. I turned down visits from the "Today" programme and a variety of other people. I issued no press release of any kind whatsoever. If the Under-Secretary is suggesting that I somehow leaked the matter, he is wrong and should withdraw that suggestion.

Ivor Caplin: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 14 July and said that the hon. Gentleman believes that
	"this information was given to the media by someone at the base. Clearly, it is impossible to establish the truth or otherwise in this."
	I am able to confirm that no service personnel will be made redundant as a result of the decision. The early announcement will allow our recruitment planners to take account of the reduced manpower requirements, and personnel will be redeployed as necessary. We anticipate that some of the 280 MOD civilian staff who currently work at RAF Lyneham will be found alternative MOD employment. As the closure draws nearer, we shall reduce staff numbers through natural wastage. Of course, I cannot rule out the possibility that some civilian staff might have to be made redundant but if that is the case, they will be appropriately compensated and looked after. That measure, in addition to the fact that the area is one of relatively low unemployment, should help to mitigate the economic effect.
	The hon. Gentleman's press release accused the Prime Minister of making a substantially misleading remark at Prime Minister's Question Time. That allegation was completely without foundation—he repeated the accusation in the debate. The Prime Minister said on 7 May that he had no doubt that RAF Lyneham would play a role in future conflicts. At the time, no decision had been taken—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had not even seen the final recommendations arising from the review. Moreover, even now that the decision has been taken to close RAF Lyneham, the Prime Minister's statement remains true.

James Gray: I asked the Prime Minister:
	"Does he also agree that all future conflicts will equally depend on RAF Lyneham?"—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.]
	The Prime Minister replied that he had "no doubt at all" that Lyneham would play a role "in future conflicts, too." There was a clear implication that Lyneham would play a role in all future conflicts. If the Prime Minister did not know about a decision that would affect 10,000 people's livelihoods on 7 May, that says an awful lot about the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 Downing street.

Ivor Caplin: I am afraid that intervening sometimes does not help the hon. Gentleman's case. Why he thinks that the Prime Minister should apologise for, or come to the House about, a statement that was absolutely true is beyond me. Indeed, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should apologise for stating in his press release on 4 July that the Prime Minister gave an assurance that the base would not be closed. The Prime Minister's statement to the House on 7 May clearly gave no such assurance. The hon. Gentleman has decided to interpret it that way for his own constituency benefit.
	I shall explain why the decision has been made. In the Adjournment debate on the 26 February last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the review was driven not by the need to make financial cuts, but by the need to identify the best and most cost-effective basing arrangements for the new fleets. Despite that assurance, I note again that the hon. Gentleman stated in his press release that the decision was driven by financial cuts. He repeated that tonight. I stress that that is not the case. Indeed, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the recent spending review, the Government provided for the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. We all know that it is the Tories who plan to slash public spending by 20 per cent. if they are ever elected to government again.
	It is essential that the Ministry of Defence regularly reviews what it needs to meet the defence requirement, and this review was a part of that ongoing process. The review was needed to consider how best to accommodate the new fleets. Planning for the future is what any good business would do and it is our duty to the taxpayer to ensure that we only spend what we need.
	The hon. Gentleman has also questioned the amount of money spent on the infrastructure at RAF Lyneham over the years. Does he believe that we deliberately underinvested in the station to make its closure more inevitable? If he does, he is simply wrong. All strike command stations have been treated equitably for such spending. Expenditure on infrastructure is authorised according to the urgency of the work and each station is required to prioritise its spend in accordance with specified criteria, the foremost criterion being work required to meet statutory requirements. In fact, for many years, additional money has been made available to support work on the Lyneham estate. There is no question that RAF Lyneham has in any way been singled out over the years for inequitable treatment.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about working with local authorities and what he described as the Lyneham taskforce. Ministry of Defence officials would be happy to co-operate with such a taskforce. I understand that consultation is taking place with trade unions, which I think he said are involved in that taskforce, and others. All consultation and discussion will take place before closure in 2012.
	I understand that the announcement of the closure of RAF Lyneham will be disappointing news for the dedicated military and civilian personnel at the base who have contributed so much to recent operations. I take nothing away from the excellent work that has been done at Lyneham over the years. I recognise, too, the disappointment that will be felt by those in the area who give the station so much valued support.
	RAF Lyneham has a long and proud history. However, I am sure all concerned will understand that we must make best use of defence resources. Part of that equation is looking closely at the bases we need in the long term. Locating the RAF's air transport and air refuelling fleets at a single station will increase the efficiency of our operations and allow more efficient and modern working practices to be implemented.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.